Website with covid documentation?

[Scota4570]

Is there one??

People like to talk about covid. When I tell them things that disagree with the government and mass media they get upset. They write me off as a crank. I am not a walking encyclopedia with footnotes at the tip of my tongue. I would like to point them to a resource that answers those questions. Is there one out there?

These issue I would like to support are things like, vaccine injuries, vaccine effectiveness, who really dies of covid, how many have really died of covid, is the vax justified for children, and are masks effective virus stoppers? I have seen all of these thing addressed, but it is not all in one place. Information like this get taken down.

[Gundiver]

https://truthcomestolight.com/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet-a-collection-of-all-the-arguments-youll-ever-need/

[tundraboomer]

Unfortunately, the data seems to change daily.

[Scota4570]

Data does not change. That is why, whenever I can, support my BS with peer reviewed scientific studies in repeatable journals.

Great website-link. Thanks!

[LBDamned]

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=441

[SPUTTER]

I keep it simple with people that believe the media. The injection is already more dangerous than all the vaccines combined since vaers inception, long-term side effects are unknown and the pharmacuetical companies are shielded for liability.
If they dismiss those simple facts as untrue, then adding additional information is a waste of time. I said these things to individuals and told them, "don't take my word for it, find out for yourself, it's no secret". That's usually enough to get them started. A coworker of mine had no clue about any of these things and he ran out and got the shot. Now he's worried about long-term side effects and absolutely doesn't want the booster.

[tundraboomer]

Data does not change.

Really? How many times have the infection rates (for example) been "amended" in a given location? How about mortality rates?

[Scota4570]

Data is your recorded observation of an event. Once documented it just is. Scientists do not use pencils with erasers. We use pens.

Data is not conclusions based on observations.

A group of observations may evolve over time. In that case the conclusion or hypothesis my be amended to reflect now facts.

[Gundiver]

Did my link above work?

[N8R]

Some helpful links that I send to people that are interested.

https://thecovidblog.com/

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

[FatCity67]

Don't argue with idiots.

Light them up and leave them hanging.

[toro1]

Data is your recorded observation of an event. Once documented it just is. Scientists do not use pencils with erasers. We use pens.

Data is not conclusions based on observations.

A group of observations may evolve over time. In that case the conclusion or hypothesis my be amended to reflect now facts.

While I agree with you, I do not think you will ever find a site that has what you are looking for.

Is there a site that says how many people actually have/had COVID? No, it is clear you need to understand the thresholds used in PCR testing to weed out false positives.

Is there a site that shows how many died from COVID? No, you need to remove the PCR test inaccuracies, and then go through to understand the died with or from deaths.

Is there a site that clearly shows jab status vs side effects and jab status vs hospitialization? No, vaccination status is defined differently by people so the data sets do not align.

It seems there is a conscious effort to destroy the data sets so they are only usable for what some people want them for.

The only thing that makes sense to me to understand what is truly going on is the excess death numbers, but even those are tainted. In early 2020 excess deaths painted a good picture, but then in July the comparison baseline changed. Over time it became clear the CDC and others changed the projected deaths for 2020 to an average of the 2015-2019 time frame. This yielded a lower baseline so the excess death numbers showed much higher than if you used the 2019 deaths as a baseline or a projected 2020 total based on 2019 and add in numbers for an average growth rate. If you project a realistic 2020 number and compare deaths to that is completely different picture emerges.

For what its worth, this is the site I use and what is particularly interesting is the excess death data by age. Either younger people than expected died from COVID in 2020, or a lot of young people died from many other causes due to the lock down.

https://www.usmortality.com/

If you go through the data note that sometimes they use rates and sometimes use actual numbers.

[Scota4570]

Cool link: https://www.usmortality.com/

Is there a way to make the graph go for a 10-year time span? Unless we can compare the graph to historical trends we have no point of reference.

It is enlightening to make it only show people under 65 YO. Unless you are very old, and likely sick, it looks like you are relatively safe.

[toro1]

Cool link: https://www.usmortality.com/

Is there a way to make the graph go for a 10-year time span? Unless we can compare the graph to historical trends we have no point of reference.

It is enlightening to make it only show people under 65 YO. Unless you are very old, and likely sick, it looks like you are relatively safe.

While the historical tab does show some history, most are from 2015 except the first one that is death rate which goes back further.

Also, as I said, make sure you understand what baseline they are using as most of their data compares to a 2015-2019 average which IMHO adds a lot of error into the results.