No New Hospitalizations or Deaths Today
Press release from Humboldt County Public Health:
Humboldt County Public Health reported today 185 new cases of COVID-19, bringing to 12,918 the total number of residents who have tested positive for the virus. No new deaths or hospitalizations were reported.
Since the last data update on Jan. 7, the county has recorded 1,113 new cases of COVID-19. Four deaths were reported during that period, three were unvaccinated and one whose vaccination status is unknown. Seven new hospitalizations of residents were also reported. Five were unvaccinated and two were fully vaccinated. Age ranges of reported hospitalizations in the seven-day period are as follows:
- 1 person in their 20s
- 1 person in their 50s
- 1 person in their 60s
- 3 people in their 70s
- 1 person aged 80 or older
The graphs below, which depict average weekly case rates and estimated weekly hospitalization and death rates in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated local residents, show that more severe outcomes from COVID-19 are higher among unvaccinated individuals.
For the reporting period between June 5, 2021, and Jan. 2, 2022, 16 fully vaccinated Humboldt County resident died from COVID-19. The average age of those deaths was 79. During that same period, 48 unvaccinated residents died from the virus. The average age of those deaths was 67. During that same period, 56 fully vaccinated residents were hospitalized with an average age of 74 and 244 unvaccinated individuals were hospitalized with an average age of 58.
The graph above from data between June 5, 2021 and Jan. 2, 2022, illustrates the county’s current weekly hospitalization rate for fully vaccinated individuals is 0.2 per 100,000 while the rate for unvaccinated individuals is 11 times higher at 2.2 per 100,000. Over the past 10 weeks, both the hospitalization and mortality rates for unvaccinated individuals was approximately 11 times greater than those for fully vaccinated. View a more detailed depiction of the hospitalization and death rates graph.
The current seven-day average case rate in Humboldt County is approximately 81, meaning that for every 100,000 residents, approximately 81 tested positive daily over the last seven days. Case rates vary considerably by vaccination status, as illustrated in the graph below, which depicts average weekly case rates since February 2021 in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated residents.
The most recent seven-day average case rate for the period ending Jan. 2 for fully vaccinated individuals is 84 per 100,000 residents, while the case rate for unvaccinated individuals is 58 per 100,000 residents. Despite increasing coronavirus infections among vaccinated people, experts say vaccines are still significantly reducing the risks of severe illness. “Just because you have a breakthrough infection doesn’t mean the vaccine does not work and isn’t giving you huge benefit,” Dr. Justin Lessler, professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina. View a more detailed depiction of the case rate graph here.
The California Department of Public Health has updated its guidance on isolation and quarantine for workplace settings aimed at allowing certain vaccinated people to continue working under specific circumstances.
State health officials also recently expanded eligibility and are recommending boosters for children aged 12 to 15 if it has been at least five months since they completed their primary vaccination series. Appointments can be made on the state’s updated vaccination portal My Turn.
Public Health is monitoring a surge in cases that officials are attributing to the highly transmissible Omicron variant. Officials continue to stress that residents, especially those who are unvaccinated, work to protect themselves and their families from all COVID-19 variants by following mask requirements in public settings, socially distancing and getting vaccinated or boosted when eligible to do so.
Health officials are also reminding residents that hospitalizations, rather than positive case numbers, are the best indicator of how the county is being impacted in the most recent surge of cases. Vaccines and boosters provide an increased level of protection from Omicron, Delta and other variants.
Those individuals who are fully vaccinated or boosted typically develop milder symptoms, shorter illness duration and have fewer hospitalizations and less severe outcomes. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rates of hospitalizations by vaccination status, unvaccinated adults are greater than 8 times more likely to be hospitalized than those adults who are fully vaccinated. Locally, that number is currently 13 times higher for the period from Jan. 2 through Jan. 8.
The COVID-19 Joint Information Center (1-707-441-5000) will be closed Monday for the Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday. English and Spanish speaking call takers will resume regular operations on Tuesday to answer questions related to COVID-19 vaccination, testing and preventive measures. Questions emailed to [email protected] over the holiday will also be responded to on Tuesday.
OptumServe’s testing sites at the Wharfinger Building in Eureka and Azalea Hall in McKinleyville will be open during the holiday Monday. Appointments are required and can be made at lhi.care/covidtesting or by calling 888-634-1123.
As always, Humboldt County’s vaccination and testing services are available free of charge. Although walk-ins are allowed at most regular Public Health clinics and many pharmacy vaccination sites, an increase in demand for boosters has caused delays at some locations. As a result, appointments are required for pediatric clinics and for clinics at Public Health’s main office. Appointments are strongly recommended for all other clinics and are the best way to ensure a shot is available during your visit. Appointments can be made at MyTurn.ca.gov.
Vaccines, including boosters, are available at local pharmacies. To check the availability of a specific vaccine, visit the vaccines.gov page, or text your ZIP code to 438829 to locate a nearby pharmacy offering vaccines.
See the schedule below for specific Public Health vaccination and testing clinic dates, times, locations and available services. Questions about clinic services can be directed to the Joint Information Center at 1-707-441-5000.
Redway — Saturday, Jan. 15, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Healy Senior Center (456 Briceland Road)
Pfizer/Johnson & Johnson/Moderna
PCR and rapid testing available on a first-come first-served basis
Appointments for vaccinations strongly recommended.Eureka — Tuesday, Jan. 18, 9 to 11:30 a.m. — FULL
Public Health Main Office (529 I St.)
Ages 12 and older
Pfizer/Johnson & Johnson/Moderna
No testing available
$25 gift card for adults receiving a first or second dose
Appointments required.Eureka Pediatric Clinic — Tuesday, Jan. 18, 1:15 to 3:45 p.m.
Public Health Main Office (529 I St.)
Ages 5 to 11
Pfizer only
No testing available
Appointments required.Willow Creek — Tuesday, Jan. 18, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Closed from noon to 1 p.m.
Public Health Office (77 Walnut Way)
Pfizer/Johnson & Johnson/Moderna
PCR and rapid testing available on a first-come first-served basis
$25 gift card for adults receiving a first or second dose
Appointments for vaccinations strongly recommended.Arcata — Wednesday, Jan. 19, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
D Street Neighborhood Center (1301 D St.)
Pfizer/Johnson & Johnson/Moderna
PCR and rapid testing available on a first-come first-served basis
Appointments for vaccinations strongly recommended.Hoopa — Thursday, Jan. 20, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Hoopa Fire Hall (11121 Hwy 96)
Pfizer/Johnson & Johnson/Moderna
No rapid testing available at this clinic. PCR testing offered through OptumServe by appointment only at the Hoopa Fire Hall.
Appointments for vaccinations strongly recommended.Eureka — Friday, Jan. 21, 1 to 8 p.m.
Wharfinger Building (1 Marina Way)
Pfizer/Johnson & Johnson/Moderna
No rapid testing available at this clinic. PCR testing offered through OptumServe by appointment on the lower floor of the Wharfinger Building.
Appointments for vaccinations strongly recommended.View the Data Dashboard online at humboldtgov.org/dashboard, or go to humboldtgov.org/DashboardArchives to download data from a previous time. For the most recent COVID-19 information, visit cdc.gov or cdph.ca.gov. Local information is available at humboldtgov.org or by contacting [email protected] or calling 1-707-441-5000.
Sign up for COVID-19 vaccination: MyTurn.ca.gov
Check for vaccine availability at a local pharmacy: Vaccines.gov
Local COVID-19 vaccine information: humboldtgov.org/VaccineInfo
Humboldt County COVID-19 Data Dashboard: humboldtgov.org/Dashboard
Follow us on Facebook: @HumCoCOVID19
Instagram: @HumCoCOVID19
Twitter: @HumCoCOVID19
Humboldt Health Alert: humboldtgov.org/HumboldtHealthAlert
###
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Great news Peeps! We have lots of cases locally but our friends are staying out of the hospital and alive!
Now for the bad news – economists say Biden’s inflation is like forfeiting two of our paychecks each year. I don’t know about you but most of us can’t afford to sacrifice a month’s pay to the Biden Administration incompetence. Bidenflation keeps rolling us under with no end in sight – and then it’ll be a recession! Crazy Uncle Joe needs to fire and replace half him demn staff!
What next, start a war with Russia to distract us from Brandon’s disasters??
You are aware that inflation is a world wide problem?
But I agree with you, glad to see hospitalizations don’t seem to be spiking locally. Maybe Omicron is a good thing?
🕯🌳He doesn’t see the world as a whole only a individual. 🖖🖖
Even Obama’s economic guru blames Biden for our sky-high inflation robbing income and savings from each of us. Are you saying he’s wrong too?
They say “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”
A recent study of 52,000 omicron cases found not one required ventilation and most were fine in 48 hours
Omicron is another covid joke for the younger crowd. Get your boosters panickers!
But it must be the vaccine that’s working tough, right?
If you look at the graph you will see a spike in hospitalization with the unvaccinated, around the time Omicron was being discovered. Same with the death rate. Could be a worry if it continues
To ease your worried soul I would like to direct you to the headline:
NO NEW HOSPITALIZATIONS OR DEATHS TODAY
Omicron is a blessing transitioning covid to endemic status, everywhere all the time so learn to live with it or stay home.
Crack me up , whole family has omicron, run of the mill common cold is way worse. This omicron has the whole family looking at covid and people as a whole in a new light. You would have to have 2 feet in the grave for it to be an issue.
That’s fine. If you’re going to get Covid, the Omicron is the one to get. Highly transmissible but not very dangerous. Delta was more dangerous, but not as transmissible. The problem is, what if the next variant is both?
I hope that works out for you.
I’m not seeing it, could you include a date?
That’s what happens when you kill fuel and jobs.
Our inflation is sky high due to Biden’s American Rescue overheating the economy and his throttling of US energy production. QED
Let’s see…this covid issue started while tRump was in office. Had he done what he should have done, maybe the virus could have been controlled. Yes, the vax manufacturing was pushed hard, but then tRump called it out as unnecessary.
Biden isn’t perfect, but fighting against tRump’s minions about everything every day ? We are doomed as a democracy.
We are doomed as a democracy with the current president.
Curious what you think Biden is doing to “doom democracy”?
Check the polls, the people are yelling it at you.
Poll numbers have nothing to do with the question I asked. What do low approval ratings have to do with grumpy old grunts assertion that Biden is “ dooming democracy”?
People are more segregated now than 2 years ago. I thought Biden was going to bring love and harmony, cr, craaa, craccck, crack me me me up
He’s at 33% in the polls, so he’s probably at more like 20%.
That alone should lead to an investigation into the election.
He is incompetent and lacks the crucial brainpower to be a leader; he is a crypto racist who disparages blacks by telling them they are not black if they don’t vote democrat as he said to Charlamaine the god- a black radio host/praises the grand kkk cyclops Senator Byrd for being a statesman/stated that his kids need not go to inner city schools because they are urban jungles (in case u were not sure, he is talking about blacks and Mexicans in his reference to jungles)/stated that Obama is a clean, articulate black man (did he mean most black men are dirty and articulate-why yes he did); he makes wild claims about being at civil rights marches when he was 10 states away/ states he beat up some black guy named corn pop who obviously only exists in his mind as he is a weakling and [edit]/ claims he is a blue collar worker from #cranton when he was only there until the age of five/stated that he has multiple degrees and graduated tops in law school when he actually was at the bottom and barely passed; he is corrupt-10% for the big guy; states half the country supports George… Read more »
But he’s not Trump, and that’s all the Biden defenders care about. 🤦♀️
Yep! They’ve put our country through hell because of their hatred for Trump. Now they’ll get 12 years of Trump/Desantis.
Ask the 1/6 political prisoners. Oh, wait. They aren’t allowed to answer.
Trying to force through Federal Voting oversight on an issue that is clearly relegated to the states in the Constitution, for one thing.
70% of voters including “Democrats” are in favor of Voter ID, but Senator Byrd’s Old Buddy calls that Jim Crow 2.0. And at an appearance on the issue by the KKK’s puppet…errr! President Biden in Georgia isn’t attended by that self-proclaimed voting Rights Activist Stacey Abrams.
Then there’s trying to mandate his way through the COVID “crisis” that isn’t really a crisis at all. Supreme Court laid the Smack Down on that over-reach.
There’s a few ways that Brandon is being particularly “Un-Democratic”.
Been a rough week for the Feeble Old White Man. Hope Jill tucked him in with warm cookies and milk after she coaxed him into his Depends last night.
Grumpy is right, history books will write of the 2020 election as the turning point to the Great American Decline. Voters wanted a no drama administration but Biden instead handed our government to radical socialist progressive haters that are hell bent on destroying America just to prove they can.
2016 more like.
Stolen elections have consequences.
Yep, that’s how we got GW.
And probably how we got Trump, too.
And Kennedy
How’d we get L. Johnson?
Your commie symp friend shot Kennedy. And then your mafia friend shot that guy.
You don’t care really believe that story, do you?
I was in diapers at the time.
I remember the assassination clearly. We were watching it live.
I watched Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald as well.
Was my “commie symp friend”, and my “mafia friend”, in diapers, too, or did I run with the older crowd?
Funny how Jacqueline was unscathed in the event, no?
Then why have more Americans died of covid under Brandon’s guidance than Trump’s?
Correct, we can stop the flu, crack me up.
If only he had closed the borders.
.
He’s got Blinken working on getting that war started.
First Biden greenligjts Putin’s Nordstrom 2 pipeline and its enormous cash flow to fund foreign ventures then nutty Joe wants to get in a military confrontation with the Russian nuclear superpower. Imagine, what could go wrong?
Bidenflation robbing 10% of our income and savings just in his first year. The worse is still to come from senile Uncle Joe and his crew of incompetents.
So much for it being an anomaly, Kym. Time has told.
Last week, 1.7 times more likely for the fully vaccinated to have gotten infected, this week it’s 1.44 times as likely to have become infected if you’re fully vaccinated, for a two week average of 1.57 times more likely, to have gotten infected, if you are fully vaccinated.
Any brave, slick-talking, pro-jabbers out there that care to take a stab at explaining that?
I will go with the odds, and bet there won’t be…
C’ Mon, man, let’s hear it!
Use your imaginations…
(Shouldn’t the headline also read, ‘ Fully Vaccinated Cases Greatly Outnumber Unvaccinated Cases for the Second Week in a Row!!! ‘, instead of simply, ‘No New Hospitalizations’ ???)
That’s the real eye-grabbing news…
Does that show a bias?
It does to me.
But the spike in hospitalization among the unvaccinated? More positive cases among the vaccinated yes, but appears vaccine is keeping people out of hospital
The vaccines are making people complacent. If you’re asymptomatic, how will you know you are infected? If you don’t know you’re infected, how will you keep from infecting others? Get the vaccine, get Covid, and become an instant superspreader!
That kind of helps to explain it…
The vaccinated are doing more risky stuff, aware and unaware, and also, we are giving it to each other and receiving it from each other more often, because there are twice as many of us…?
Sounds plausible…
There’s got to be more to it, or it wouldn’t have just started recently…
What else?
Is the vax backfiring?
ADE?
Is the vax backfiring?
ADE?
Yes and Yes.
The shots are only good for about 5-6 to reduce symptoms, but you are still able to get and give it during that time. They want the vaccinated to get four shots a year as long as they can keep everyone scared with a new variant.
That is a possible explanation. It does not make much sense though given that it run counters to the general reaction each group has had to the virus, and it fails to explain why the unvaccinated would be more cautious in every way except getting vaccinated, or to address the fact that anti-mask and antisocial distancing go hand-in-hand with antivax positions. It honestly seems like gaslighting from my perspective.
Exactly, but the lack of making sense is not going to keep people from repeating that sort of tripe.
Nor any other sort of tripe, obviously.
Except you fail to realize that avoiding the vaccines is precisely because many of them are so excessively cautious, and that avoidance of the vaccine, does not, as you have concluded, run counter to cautious behavior, in any way.
It defines it.
While I was unvaccinated, I was extremely cautious.
I segregated my groceries between perishable and nonperishable, and when I got home, I isolated the perishable groceries in my spare fridge, and didn’t unpack the nonperishable groceries for days, before unpacking them, for a while.
That ended quickly.
I also stayed home for 2 week stretchs often, up to 4 weeks at a time…
Were you that careful, ever? I would wager you were not. And I would wager a lot, that you were not ever that careful.
The fact that they are vaccinated makes me think they would be more cautious, which is why they got the vaccine in the first place. I am fully vaccinated but still mask and distance when possible.
So, your theory is that because the fully vaccinated are being more cautious, they are getting infected 1.57 times more often than those considered unvaccinated, for the last two weeks?
Does that add up?
No, it doesn’t.
Reverse psychology?
👍 Guest.
Not what I said at all.
…says beetlejuice, cautiously.
For it to add up, vaccine efficacy against omichron would need to be negative. The graph is a rate per 100k people, so the fact that there are more vaxxed than not is accounted for.
Yes, I understand.
That is what the graph suggests.
Negative efficacy is what it shows.
So explain that.
It suggests that the vaccines are doing more harm than good against infection.
Now consider, out in the real world of Humboldt, there are 1.72 times as many vaxxed as “unvaxxed”, that you will come across face to face, and for the last two weeks, they have also been 1.57 times as likely to be infected.
A double whammy.
“Negative efficacy is what it (the graph) shows.” Eloquently put.
“Negative efficacy is what it shows.”
It is possible but only a fool would make a conclusion without more data.
That’s an insult.
And a pink one at that.
No more data is needed to make the observation.
If it doesn’t show a glaring negative efficacy, it shows a glaring error in the testing methodology.
It’s really quite simple.
Do you not see it?
It’s so obvious.
It sticks out like a sore thumb.
Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they open up.
I think it is. Look at the more detailed graph linked in the article. It reads
“*Persons vaccinated and unvaccinated by week or month are used as population denominators.”
That seems to mean that when they say per 100,000, they mean per 100,000 vaxed or per 100,000 unvaxed.
It does. It means both. I’m wondering if Kym understands that. That the two are adjusted differently. I don’t understand how she thinks that a majority of vaccinated people testing will end up with questionable results any more than the other way around. It seems she thinks the numbers are out of the same 100,000, and they have just adjusted the total population of Humboldt of 135,768, to 100,000. There are really only a few explanations for the apparent super negative efficacy of the vaccine, in order of what I consider the likelihood… #1) the testing methodology is, and, has been, seriously flawed. For example, if 90% of the people that tested in a day are vaxxed, the total positive test results that came from the vaxxed people tested, would need to be divided by nine, before being further adjusted for a per 100,000 vaxxed comparison, and in this case, the “unvaxxed” positive test results, would only be adjusted for a per 100,000 comparison. And if it we’re 90% of the people that test the next day, are “unvaxxed”, then it would be the unvaxxed test results that came back positive that would be divided by nine, etc. I believe… Read more »
You overlooked the most likely explanation, which is that the more conscientious population is more likely to get tested, and thus show a positive result, after asymptomatic exposure or mild symptoms.
No, you have overlooked the most likely explanation, a flawed testing methodology.
It shouldn’t matter who gets tested, or if they are vavvinated or not. If it did, that would prove the flawed testing methodology.
Understand?
You just shot yourself in the foot.
It proves you don’t understand.
You’re the one contending that the raw case rates indicate “negative efficacy” of the vaccines per your prejudices, without considering the sampling bias among those getting tested while experiencing mild or no symptoms. The issue is not “flawed testing methodology,” which would affect vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. Use some logic, dear boy.
Thirdeye, let’s not be to hasty when it comes to logic, OK.
I posted some links for Kym to peruse from two months ago, near the end of the comments.
Why don’t you read them, and then maybe you will understand.
Maybe you will, maybe you won’t.
But clearly you don’t, now.
And if you do read them, try and help an open mind, and use your head.
And my name isn’t “dear boy”.
Just another pink cheapshot.
I said nothing about the raw case counts.
Was that not the case until 2 weeks ago?
(Sarc font)
Ah yes,
The most likely explanation!
That must be it, how could I have missed it?
A great shift in conscientiousness!
“The moral majority of 2022!”
(The same, previously immoral, majority of 2021!)
It must be from all their New Year resolutions!
All of the previously unconscientious vaccinated folks, from last year, all had a great epiphany in common, and resolved to turn there lives and miserable morality around, and boom!, they’re all suddenly so positive and no longer so negative!
The apparent negative efficacy, is really a positive thing, thanks to them!
Of course! Surely it’s true!
The unvaccinated must have coincidentally resolved, for their New Year’s resolution, to cease all their previous conscientiousness, that must have been the reason that they tested higher in 2021!
That totally provides the answer to the question I asked about explain the apparent negative efficacy of the case graph!
Well sleuthed!
(End sarc font)
( I did say, use your imagination)
Not what I said at all. What stated:
“The vaccines are making people complacent” I addressed that. You are vaccinated, are you going into stores or going maskless when your around other vulnerable people? Do you recommend that?
You did not explain the apparently negative efficacy of the vaccines.
I asked for an explanation, and you responded to that, but you didn’t explain it.
Quite the contrary.
I was replying to what not you.
You are getting the 2 reply’s mixed up. As far as my first reply to you that has to do with what you think is important is not necessarily what others think is important.
I guess you don’t think negative efficacy is important, then.
It’s not for you to decide what is important or not to others, that’s just for you.
“Negative efficacy” is a myth that looks plausible to the statistically illiterate.
But vaccine “zero efficacy” is plausible?
Given the overwhelming representation of the unvaccinated in more recent cases with severe outcomes, “zero efficacy” of the vaccines is entirely not plausible.
“Less than zero vaccine efficacy, (negative efficacy), against infection, is the subject de jour, and the menu is the case graph.
Is the case graph in error.
That could be the problem if you think that the negative efficacy it clearly shows is a myth.
I would agree that the statistics it shows of a negative efficacy against infection are likely due to a flawed testing methodology.
Significant negative efficacy against infection is what the case graph clearly shows. Maybe the case graph is in error?
Not what your comment says.
It says that you were replying to me.
This is what I was replying to.. “The vaccines are making people complacent” Which is what? said. OK? The first reply was to you yes. The next reply was meant for what?..Got it? The next reply “not what I said at all”was to you. Got it?
“It’s not for you to decide what is important or not to others, that’s just for you.” Right..and I stated what was important to me..Got it? Jesus….
Hey, I’d be grumpy if the experimental injections I took were starting to fail too. I don’t blame you. But don’t take it out on Guest
How grumpy would you be if you were forced to take them?
I might swing right into salty at that point
Vaccinated have less risk of hospitalization and death yet further build immunity when they contract omicron. It’s a win!
But vaccinated have way more of a risk of infection?
Sorry, mlr that doesn’t add up.
I’m glad that you’re happy with the way your choice is playing out
If you binge-watch Rachel Maddow she will school you on how to put these pesky nay-sayers in their place.
Pushing it. Stick to ideas not insulting other commenters about their viewing habits which you know nothing about.
And who is this Rachel Maddow? Now I have to watch her just to see what’s she’s about.
If that’s insulting, I’m not sure what isn’t insulting. People are going to be afraid to say anything and this board will be a boring replica of LOCO. But maybe that’s your point.
Some commenters make me contemplate a stricter response…
Yes we know; they have the wrong opinions
The opinion that women should be beaten with a stick will be deleted on my website, rollin. The opinion that black people should be enslaved will be deleted, rollin. The opinion that x commenter thinks y commenter is an asshole will be deleted on my website.
Yes, people have wrong opinions and expressing them and getting feedback is reasonable. But there are some opinions that on my website are so twisted as for me to consider them hate speech and delete them.
And, she says darkly squinting in an unnamed direction, some commenters are so consistently belittling and unpleasant to the owner of this site while contributing so little of value that dealing with them day after day is taxing to my mental health so eventually the day might come when I delete them.
It isn’t here yet sadly.
🤔🧐How some commenters like to toe the line on the RHBB “no insult rule”…
Snort! That is very true.
Shut it down, kym.
Every commenter gets 5 comments.
You are the only one to blame for allowing tit for tat day in and day out.
Remove the comments and watched those page visits drop like bidens poll numbers
Haven’t we done this already? I had over 2 million views in the last 30 days. I had about 14,000 comments. Even if you multiplied that by 7 to account for people reading but not commenting, I MIGHT in the worse case scenario lose 100,000 views and very few of my advertisers (think none) will care about that relatively small difference between 1,900,000 and 2 million.
🧐🧐I wonder how many views and comments are mine?😁
No one would give a shit if you deleted comments advocating enslaving blacks, beating women with sticks, or calling people asshole, OBVIOUSLY. And joking around, warning about the perils of binge-watching Rachel Maddow, is not the same as any of those things…..OBVIOUSLY.
The comment is still up…But the commenter has been increasingly attacking other commenters in harsh ways. I’ve deleted them. And warned him on one that was a mild version of what he had been doing.
Promises promises.
It’s evident that you find something in all this back and forth
There is no reason this post needs 500plus comments, unless it makes you feel worthy
Yes, I do find lots of things to value in the comment section. If there is one good thing about the madness of this comment section it is that I’m daily reminded that there are people whose way of thinking is light years apart from mine. But here’s something about the comment section I wrote a few months ago you might want to consider: Why I have a comment section: *Just today I’m connecting a witness to a death with the family of the deceased. I connect people frequently. People also connect with each other without my assistance. That would be less likely to occur if people had to go out of their way to email me and I had to make time to find email addresses, etc. How would a family member even know that a witness had additional information if they didn’t see it in the comment section? *Witnesses provide accounts and photos of breaking news events as they occur in real time providing knowledge to other readers. Information about drive time, possible workarounds, etc are frequently provided. *People can quickly advise me if I have made a mistake. *I can quickly find witnesses to make the story… Read more »
(just for the covid sections.)
Hey, it’s your call, but don’t complain about no sleep from having to herd insults
If there is one good thing about the madness of this COVID comment section it is that I’m daily reminded that there are people whose way of thinking is light years apart from mine. And sometimes, when people forget their rage, I’m reminded that these folks are people I have a lot of other things in common with.
There are many places people can comment, but this is the only place people can comment with their neighbors, and hear what they are thinking.
After a long weekend and a huge interest in covid, it’s natural the comment section will have more comments while waiting for the next report.
I find out even more about the commentors when I read comments on other threads, like how they come together to help each other during fires and snow events.
Kym,
I have just one word that describes the way your news coverage, and the comment section, “can”, work together to become the unmatched news source, bar none, that it has become.
“Magic”.
If it takes 2 to 600 comments, per covid article (that is a public health dumpster fire )
guest, I’d call that Tragic.
Yet you see no need to limit your participation.
Remember when the two missing young children were found?
That was a “miracle”.
And alternately, how lot’s of times the comments seem like rusty practice for a “spelling” contest?
That’s more like a “spectacle”.
I’ll stick with “magic”.
Your criticism is duly noted.
Look, beetlejuice,
Either you can come up with an explanation for the glaringly apparent super negative vaccine efficacy shown in the two graphs, or you can’t.
So, which is it?
The same thing that the Danish study researchers cited? A lot of young people travelling for holidays and wanting a test to ensure their family’s safety therefore favoring being vaccinated and/or a lot of people who are travelling and already vaccinated came back infected, while those without vaccination tended not to do those things, I’d say out of principle but more likely out of fecklessness. This is artifact of a virus that has not yet wildly spread in the population that the unvaccinated behave differently and, until the virus spreads to the whole community, most of the tests are going to be in the vaccinated who either need or care to get the tests. Once the unvaccinated start getting sick, the vaccine’s true efficacy has always been positive. As is shown in this article on another anti vaxxer fixation based injudicious data that is not yet complete. “”We’re in the process of adding two more weeks of data and it looks like there’s no more negative VE (vaccine effectiveness). Our results are now more in line with the data from the U.K. where it’s lower, for sure, compared to Delta, but never getting to negative,” he told CBC News.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-study-omicron-anti-vaxxers-1.6315890… Read more »
It should still come out in the wash if the testing is being done properly.
In Humboldt it out not be being done properly, or the efficacy is negative against infection.
It’s as simple as that.
No need to complicate it any further than that.
🧐🤔And, would you please stop bringing up the Danish so much, I’m gluten free, and your torturing me every time you bring up, “The Danish”. 😁
You’re correct Guest.
“Negative efficacy” is in all likelihood a statistical artifact based on the self-selection of who gets tested after asymptomatic exposure or mild symptoms.
What difference would it make, as far as accuracy, as far as who got tested? If it does, it’s been wrong all along.
Sampling bias is a huge problem when self-selection of subjects in statistical data occurs.
Let me try to put this in statistical terms so that you might understand…
My contention, is that the various
ratios of covid test subjects, in any daily group, as far as vax status is concerned, are not being weighted differently, or proportionately, or properly by the county. I believe that they are all being weighted the same, as if the two testing group sizes were always equal, regardless of the true ratio of their respective vax statuses in any given group, and only the positive results are being weighted differently, based on the respective ratios of vax status of the population when finally adjusted to per 100,000 population.
Can you confirm that each test subject is weighted properly, every day, and that is being accounted for by adjusting the test results properly, every day,
BEFORE those adjusted results are converted to “per 100,000”
numbers.
I believe everyone in the test group has been being weighted the same.
I think that is where the problem is coming from.
Does that make more sense now?
Then the results have been wrong
and misleading all along, is that what you’re saying?
I would agree with that, that is what I have been trying to say for months.
Your circular reasoning does not hold when the unvaccinated start getting sick enough to want to be tested. There are just too few of them involved in mandatory testing to be significant until then. That is what is misleading.
What are you basing that conclusion on? Isn’t the sheriff’s office only like half vaccinated? What’s the rate with all county workers? What about school system faculty? What about those members of the least vaccinated adult cohort who are out at shows every week that require negative tests?
Do you know the vaccine status of these populations?
Let-me-repeat. It-should-make-no- difference. If-the-testing-is-being-done-properly-that-is-all-accounted-for-every-day.
Only-if-the-testing-is-being-done-improperly-would-that-even-be an-issue.
Varying and unequal numbers of subjects in daily test groups, not being weighted accordingly, would also be a huge problem, in statistical data, wouldn’t you say?
I don’t think so.
Well gosh, that settles it then!
Look to the previous comment that came second, that’s how they post.
Why would it make any difference as to whether varying numbers of individuals in a daily testing group were vaccinated or not, unless there was a flawed testing methodology, it would be accounted for.
That is pretty clear to me, is that clear to you?
It is not clear to anyone unless your intent is to say that those who don’t want to be tested need to be dragged in and involuntarily tested just to reassure you of the statistical significance. This is a short term issue that straightens itself out over time as the virus infects more widely. It is a real life limit and your issues are only a refusal to accept those limits. You chose to say it proves the stats are wrong only because you choose, you obsess, like you did with the partially vaccinated obsession, to insist on the most unlikely interpetation as evidence of malfeasance. Just assume nothing is going to be perfectly satisfying and go with what is reasonable.
What your saying should make no difference.
Apparently the whole issue isn’t such an easy concept for everyone to understand.
It seems as though only a few other people do.
That’s not a valid conclusion. Given that Omicron infections are largely asymptomatic and that most symptomatic cases only resemble a bad cold for a few days, testing following exposure or mild symptoms is self-selected among the more conscientious population, i.e. the one that gets vaccinated. That puts an artifact in the relative case rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which invalidates them as a measure of vaccine efficacy. As has been stated on a regular basis (but which fails to penetrate certain thick skulls around here), the relative rates of hospitalization and death among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are the best measures of vaccine efficacy.
The prevalence of “thick skulls around here”, as you refer to them, is likely much higher that you might realize.
It’s interesting how you didn’t comment on this point when Guest first started bringing this issue you up months ago? If it is true now, what made it untrue 3 months ago?
Thanks, thatguyinarcata,
It was only two months ago, actually, links are near the end of the comments in a reply to Kym, if you are interested.
I found them a little while ago…
Everyone is focused on the “negative efficacy against infection” aspect.
It is what the case graph indicates, but like I keep trying to explain, the real problem, as I see it, is tied to a flawed testing methodology, as I have exhaustingly explained.
I’m glad that you see it too.
3 links below, towards the bottom, in replies to Kym.
Thanks again.
Sincerely, Guest.
Improperly weighted test candidates disqualifies all of the statistics. That is the point. The test candidates may be being improperly weighted.
That is supposed to happen first.
If it doesn’t, then any comparitive information gathered after that is invalid.
All of it. From day one.
Does that make sense now?
Masks don’t do what you think they do.
If everyone’s had an opportunity for vaccination and vaccinated don’t get seriously ill then why bother with any inconvenience n life at all? Those with four comorbidities are free to stay home.
You mean the vaccinated people with 4 or more comorbidities that represent 75% of the vaccinated people who died?
They are supposed to stay home?
I thought all along that those were the people that the vaccine was supposed to save, directly, and indirectly by everyone else that got vaccinated in order to save them.
Yeah, little of what Fauci promised turned out true, right from the start. Vaccinated or not, those with four and more comorbidities might want to shelter at home while the rest of us go about normal lives in the era of endemic coronavirus we’re entering.
🕯🌳How many times are going to repeat about the comorbidities?🖖🖖
I’m sorry but that is not a sign of cautiousness. It is a classic symptom of Screen Hypnosis.
If it’s so mild that you’re asymptomatic, like a cold, who cares what anyone does? Everyone has made their vaccine choice so deal with the consequences. If you’re afraid then hide under a rock at home
You know why? Because the anti vaxxers do not stay home. They get sick, mild or not, they spread it around with the idea if it doesn’t seem dangerous to them, anyone who complains about it must be defective or paranoid. Right up to the point they take up medical resources when they join the ranks of those they trivialized in the hospital when they could have avoided it.
But you are right about choices mostly having been made. The anti vaxxers will not change their minds. The best that can be hoped for, is their rapid fire creation of misinformation can be scotched enough so those enough that the dwindling group of uninfected, who must the least committed people on earth by now, will not be frighted by it.
Not everyone who complains about welfare recipients continuing to grocery shop is defective or paranoid…
Test test and more test
Because tests do what? Create tons of medical waste and give a few companies a lot of money?
If you feel sick then stay home.
What good is the test result?
If that were true, common or effective. Unfortunately the same group that feels secure tends to dismiss the possibility. Then there’s the problem of being most effective before symptoms show.
You somehow failed to acknowledge the rate of hospitalization in your reply. It looks as if you replied to the wrong comment.
Ahhh, yes, beetlejuice, of course.
A very smooth reframe, I must admit, and fast, but it is just a deflection, and that doesn’t explain it… Sorry… Nice try. Way to change the subject, though…
Anyone else?
And while you’re at it, can anyone explain why they are going all the way back to June 5th, 2021, for the hospitalizations comparison, but the are only going back 10 weeks for the deaths comparison?
Cherry picking data?
Let me pick, go back to August 25th, when we hit 50% fully vaccinated, plus a lag time for death after infection, and happened to lose our 1st vaccinated resident.
What would that look like.
The county conveniently skipped over the period of time that the vaccinated deaths were most concentrated.
How slimy is that?
Pretty damn slimy if you ask me.
Good point Guest, the period of time the deaths were the most concentrated in the vaxxed was skipped over.
Pretty damn deceptive and slimy if you ask me.
And they talk about the anti-vaxxers twisting the facts, being deceptive, and spreading misinformation?
We are paying these slimeballs to spin the truth and send it back to us misrepresented as facts.
I resent that. Allot.
I’ve put this up a few times. Check it out. In the UK, there’s a spike in deaths in the unvaccinated (one shot?) at exactly the time the shots rolled out….in every age group. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
https://youtu.be/6umArFc-fdc
Cult response: Doctors, statisticians don’t go on Youtube! Get your booster.
You don’t mean a spike in deaths in the literally unvaccinated, right?
You must mean in the figurative, “unvaccinated” sense, right?
You know, a spike in the folks that have just received one or two shots, haven’t gotten their second shot, or are still waiting two weeks before the are considered vaccinated?
I see what you are saying…
That would add up to a spike in vaccine deaths, wouldn’t it?
Doesn’t surprise me a bit.
Thanks for the link, rollin.
“You know, a spike in the folks that have just received one or two shots, haven’t gotten their second shot,”
We can only surmise, but the only logical explanation for a surge in deaths in the unvaccinated, at exactly the time the shots rolled out, is that it was people with one shot who were counted as “unvaccinated”.
Exactly.
Nothing mysterious about the most vulnerable population being the one that got the first shots. But what does statistical literacy matter when you’re looking for cheap shots and conspiracy theories?
Which part didn’t you understand, the part about every age group or the part about the “unvaccinated” dying when the shots were rolled out? But what does literacy matter when everything is a conspiracy theory?
Unfortunately for the righteous indignation for the cause, it’s the anti vaxxers who generate most of the misinformation by far. Public health stats are there for everyone to see and apparently quibble over other people’s wording. Those objecting to public health words use the same bloody data but simply favor another spin.
Yep, Guest.
June 5, 2021 to Jan. 2, 2022, 56 fully vaxxed residents were hospitalized, and 244 unvaxxed individuals were hospitalized.That’s 4.3, they could include 4.3 times, but they don’t.
You should learn something about sampling bias before you spin conspiracy theories about statistical data.
Explain the apparent negative efficacy please. That’s all I asked.
If you’re the expert on statistical data, it should be a piece of cake.
But nada, not even crumbs.
Try home ec.
The “apparent negative efficacy” is only something you can convince yourself of if you willfully ignore sampling bias among those who get tested.
Then the same goes for any apparent positive efficacy, then, from those same tests. Plus, you missed the point.
Did you even read the links?
Probably not, yet you are still arguing…
The test subjects weren’t properly weighted. That what I’m talking about. So the results are no good.
There was a three week period at the end September and beginning of October and a two week period at the end of November and the beginning of December where the same happened. Every other period in the year, either no one died or there were more unvaccinated deaths than vaccinated. And the unvaccinated deaths were usually much higher highs.
So what’s you beef? That they didn’t choose those few times that suited you?
One trouble that always happens with deaths is that the older and more likely to be vaccinated are more die while the younger and less likely to die are unvaccinated. But when the same age group deaths are compared, the unvaccinated always are higher. BTW if 8/25 was chosen, the unvaccinated deaths were twice as high. So can you clarify your point?
Of course omicron has changed those differences so what but omicron is still not the only variant in circulation.
So have you decided what you believe is the cause of the vaccinated being more likely to be infected is?
I wonder if the hospitalization rate will follow about 2 weeks later, and if the death rate will follow 2 weeks after that?
You were the one who introduced me to the idea that the vaccinated were going to start to die in a year, seemed a little extreme to me at the time, but if case- hospitalization- death trends remain consistent with what they’ve done throughout this pandemic that claim might end up being closer to true than I ever would have guessed
We don’t have enough data to say that the vaxed are more likely to be infected yet.
They have been statistically more likely for the last two weeks locally. Why do you believe that is?
The key piece we’re missing is the question Guest has been asking about the ratio of vaccine status being tested weekly. But the county doesn’t seem able to provide that information.
Thank you, thatguyinarcata,
You are like a breath of fresh air.
It is super nice to know that my efforts to unravel the discrepancies and inconsistencies, and even something so glaring as the apparent super negative efficacy shown all along, have not gone unnoticed, and at least someone, can understand that my theory makes sense.
Although I would venture to say that is due to the error in testing methodology of which we speak, the implication is, that the testing results all along, have been grossly in error.
But the chickens have come home to roost, and it is super obvious.
I wonder now, if it’s too late to correct them, and of this is the method of testing, Nationwide?
Start with a random sample before before jumping to s negative efficacy conclusion. Are you saying Vaccines are a covid infection magnet? Data may simply support the hypothesis that vaccinated are more commonly hypochondriac, rushing for a test with the slightest reason.
It’s possible, and this is exactly why the data about the vax status of those being tested (which Guest circuit pinged on as essential months ago) is relevant. If what you suggest is, in fact, true then was it not true 3 months ago? Were there not possibly factors that drove the unvaccinated to test much more frequently in the past?
Ultimately, the erratic nature of the graph is w what tells me there is some data collection error. However, derision or the cold shoulder were the greetings that came for Guest since they’ve been suggesting it. Once it explains away something that “shouldn’t be” just note how many of you can’t believe anyone wouldn’t have noticed it before.
Vaccination increases likelihood of future covid infection? Seems a far fetched hypothesis
Don’t forget that in the clinical trial the Pfizer-biontech injections were associated with a slight increase in all cause mortality
Mlr,
Time out for a second…
That the graph APPEARS to show a negative efficacy against INFECTION, but also suggests ONE other very different possible but probable explanation, if the negative efficacy against infection it shows is not true.
The more likely explanation is is that the testing methodology the County has been using all along is badly flawed.
I have potentially identified that
flaw. So, if you wish to reasonably defend the efficacy against infection of the vaccine as being positive, which it could very well be, then you must question the testing methodology as flawed.
If you defend the testing methodology as being accurate, then you support what the graph shows, that the vaccines have a super negative efficacy.
Those are the only two reasonable possible choices. Pick one.
My bet is on a badly flawed testing methodology in which total testing candidates in imbalanced groups are not appropriately “weighted”…
And a small side bet on the negative efficacy against infection…
The County, or anyone else apparently, admitting either one is not going to be easy.
The only other logical conclusion is that the testing methodology is flawed.
Take your pick.
We have more than enough data to suggest that there is a fatal flaw in the county’s testing methodology.
If the county comparing hospitalizations for 7 months but the deaths for only 10 weeks doesn’t throw up a red flag for you, I can’t help you. I found it to be very questionable, and probably motive driven.
If you chart out every week’s results for the last ten weeks and beyond, like I did, the county’s motive quickly becomes very clear.
They totally cherry picked the data.
Or how about how they call two weeks ago “current”.
When are we going to see the data chart for that last two weeks?
I’ve explained everything. You demand why August 25?
Look at the chart again, real closely, and tell me about the tiny box that says “Aug 7”.
What do you think that represents?
The first vax death?
Does anyone know?
I thought 8/25 was a good time to start comparing, due to the timing of achieving 50% full vax status, and the first vaxxed death, and lag time, all considered.
If she was able to make intelligent sense of the data she would see what you are pointing out. Alas……
Aren’t 98% of new cases omicron?
80% Omicron, in Humboldt, is what I gather from Dr. Hoffman.
Or rather, 20% Delta.
You’re harping on another statistical artifact. Again. The vaccination rollout targeted the most vulnerable populations first.
???
You got two upvotes, Beetlejuice.
Bravo!
The trouble is… Well, your talking about the spike in the unvaccinated hospitalizations, right? As if it was current info.
It’s not.
You got snookered, beetlejuice.
Look a little closer…
That graph deceptively does not even include the last two weeks…
And read the fine print in the article. The data for today’s graph stops 1/2/2022.
That was two weeks ago.
And they are calling it current, and using 0.2 compared to 2.2 from two weeks ago.
So, yeah, you got snookered.
That’s the kind of shit that pisses me off.
Why isn’t the info for today updated to today?
I can read you know, I saw the dates. So add in the data from the missing 2 weeks and see what you come up with. Use the dashboard archives. The up votes votes? Not that I don’t appreciate hearing from the silent majority, but I could add 5 more just on my own.
If it’s on the dashboard, and in the archives, why isn’t it on the graph?
Is that where you saw the spike in hospitalizations, on the dashboard and in the archives?
Those wouldn’t have been converted to per 100,000 yet, would they have?
Or separated into vaxxed and unvaxxed, even, would they, on the dashboard or in the archives?
I don’t think so.
Nice try.
So, the vax are the spreaders in society, but since they aren’t in the hospital, it’s all good. We are all in this together👍
You got it right!
Pandemic of the vaccinated?
Yep, this whole thing is the vaccinateds’ fault. God we are a bunch on bastards. Lol.
It appears the pandemic is the fault of folks who approved, funded, and/or engaged in gain of function research to create a bioweapon.
You don’t know that any better than anyone else but only choose to believe one of many possibilities.
That is why I included the phrase “it appears”.
When I hear hoof beats, I suspect horses not zebras. With regard to this virus lab escape (or intentional release) is analogous to horses. Bat to pangalin to human is analogous to zebras.
A thousand anti vaxxer sites repeating the same message- covid is not worth getting a vaccination but, it is Fauci’s fault for funding it- is not hoof beats at all. It’s white noise. First the intent of modifying a virus defines gain of function research. It needs to be the goal to increase the function. Even if a lab created a new virus attribute and ineptly let it escape, it is not gain of function research by the definition in the law unless that was the goal in creating it. It would be an accident. Maybe an accident that should never have happened but not a malicious subverting of the law that some anti government people love to use to attack Fauci. Second even right now the similar modification research on viruses is being done in order to develop treatment for covid. Turns out that targeting the modification that makes the covid virus novel (and therefore assumed to be proof of a gain of function created virus) is not going to stop it. Is that “gain of function” research too? Learning how to cure it? You may say that all such manipulation should be avoided but that is a different… Read more »
So, you’re pro government? Humboldt county sure has changed from what it used to be🤦♀️
She’s pro-authoritarian government, which is on-brand for HumCo
“It appears”
Exactly, I like stars, I always try and include that term as well.
Yes, I Like Stars, pandemic of the vaxxed.
The last 2 weeks the vaxxed are more likely to be infectious
than the unvaxxed, at least locally.
Aaa1,
Exactly.
With 1.57 times more infections among the fully vaccinated, per capita, for the last two weeks, and the fact that there are 1.72 times as many of us that are fully vaccinated, compared to those who are not, that means that we represent 2.7 times the community’s viral load.
So, even if we emit only 1/2 of the viral load as those considered unvaccinated, (if that is even still considered true), we, as a group, are much more infectious.
Go figure.
Sheesh. Quiet when clearly wrong and noisy when occasionally right. BTW vaccination has only recently become less material but go ahead rejoice at your moment in the sun. The couple of hundred people who vaccination kept alive to see this moment might still be happy to be here.
I was hoping you might actually try to explain the negative efficacy, nooo.
But, nooo such luck.
Never knew you to be stumped by anything.
Does the negative efficacy stump you?
There is no such thing “negative efficacy” in terms of infection. That would be the continuing anti vaxxer misunderstanding of ADE which is the more severe disease created by presence of antibodies. Those words verbose way of saying that it is not working as well. Which is true. More vaccinated people (as well as prior recovered) are getting sick.
It might be possible to imply that vaccination has created a population that was protected but now is less protected from infection but that is not what you are saying. And even if it was, being protected for a year is better than never having been protected at all. And that idea disregards the still higher death rates of the unvaccinated.
“Negative efficacy ” simply means that the treatment is correlated with an increased risk from the condition the treatment is designed to protect against.
Efficacy is a measure of the reduction of risk created by a treatment. If the treatment is correlated to an increased risk, that efficacy number would be negative. The treatment appears associated with increased risk.
Why do you think that is the case? Bonus points if you can give an answer without slurs or strawmen
The treatment is not correlated to an increased risk. You are drawing conclusions based on a statistical artifact of sampling bias in who gets tested after experiencing mild or nonexistent symptoms. Hospitalizations and deaths are not nearly as subject to such sampling bias.
Ok, then the question has to be asked, when did this sampling bias begin? Has it only existed for 2 weeks? If not, what should we make of data prior to two weeks ago? Was it not also subject to the same sampling bias?
As to hospitalizations and deaths, as many have pointed out on this board, the typical arc has been for spikes in hospitalizationto follow 2-3 weeks after case spikes, and deaths follow 2-3 weeks after that.
It would be best if the county addressed the sampling issue in their reporting by accurately weighting the positive results based on the variable proportion of vaccine status among the tested population. Then we wouldn’t have to wonder if the data is reliable or not
Exactly.
The treatment is correlated to an increased risk now, for the last two weeks.
Look at the case graph, nooo.
The apparent greatly negative vaccine efficacy suggested by it is as plain as the nooo’s on your face.
If there is “no such thing”, like you say, the get on with explaining it, and quit deflecting and reframing, will you?
The graph DOES NOT show or “imply that vaccination has created a population that was protected but now is less protected from infection”…
What the graph DOES show, is that vaccination may have created a population that, regardless if they
ever were ever actually protected from infection or not, are actually now half again more susceptible to infection as the “unvaccinated”.
(Those still “unprotected” by the vaccines are now more protected against infection).
Set aside everything else for just one moment, nooo, please, and explain it if you can, however you can.
Because, I’m sorry, you still haven’t even brushed the surface.
The graph shows none of that if you understand how the statistics are arrived at.
The graph does show that, and if what it shows is not true, then you must conclude that the statistics were arrived at in error.
And then you must conclude that all the results, derived from this testing methodology which is in error, have also been in error.
I propose that crucial error is…
The County has “weighted” all testing candidates the same, every day, regardless of the fact that the daily testing group is certainly comprised of very unequal, wildly fluctuating ratios of vax statuses, each day.
The graph, and how it has been derived, is an ongoing error, since day one.
🕯🌳Why is this so important?🖖🖖
Why isn’t it important?
If it isn’t important, why the daily reports?
If they aren’t accurate, it sure is a giant waste of time and taxpayers money.
🕯🌳Then maybe you should go bring your complaints to them?🖖🖖
I have, Willie Bray, I have.
441-5000. Covid19 information line.
Just gave me the run-around.
They promised to “send it up the chain”…
It went nowhere. And now this…
Me? Quiet? Ever?
Wrong or right?
That idea is simply absurd.
You must have me confused with another guest.
What about that people who the shots are killing? Or do you think nobody has died from the shots?
The amount of people verified to have been killed by the vaccine is less than 10. The amount killed by COVID is approaching 900,000 (and this is a very conservative number and some estimates double that).
Now, even if the total amount of UNVERIFIED deaths on the VAERS report were to be taken as gospel, the number of deaths alleged to have been caused by the vaccine is less than 11,000.
And, as the director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins University pointed out, “I can get a COVID vaccine and my dog gets hit by a car – I can make that report and it will show up in the [VAERS] database…It does not mean that my getting a COVID vaccine caused my dog to get hit by a car.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/05/fact-check-1-million-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-events-unverified/9103381002/
For anyone who gambles…for anyone understanding basic probability…the numbers are extraordinarily in favor of getting the vaccine.
11,000 (+++) real lives gone. And their heirs or PHYSICIAN who is bound by law to report, and who took the time to document the obvious correlation to them having received the vaccine and dying, were what? Lying? For what gain? What is the motive? ? Please answer me that. I’m begging. Crimes of deception typically require a motive I fail to understand the “suspicions.” Other than obvious gaslighting and rewriting history. And the number of disabling reactions are multi fold that number ! In the millions. And there has been a 10 fold increase in all reporting, over previous decade for all vaccines combined! Discounting all that data is pretty harsh. Or blind. Or manipulative. Did all those people conspire to make vaers a joke? VAERS is it. It’s all we’ve got. And doctors are legally bound to document all vaccine reactions or deaths! Are we that inept as a society that our single dashboard for monitoring vaccine injury or death is 99.97%malarkey? Funnily enough, same odds of surviving the Corona without risking your health or life subjecting yourself to the magic mRNA jabs. The knit-picky requirement for some kind of ” Dr verification” is an unobtainable end.. and… Read more »