Covid Vaccine Side Effects: 4 Takeaways From NY Times Investigation

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Covid Vaccine Side Effects: 4 Takeaways From Our Investigation

...Indeed, more than 13,000 have submitted claims to a government fund that compensates people for Covid vaccine injuries. So far, however, only a dozen people have been compensated, nearly all of them for a heart problem caused by the vaccines...

For most people, the benefits of Covid vaccines outweigh any risks...

Federal surveillance has found some side effects but may miss others...

Proving vaccination led to an illness is complicated...

Understanding the full range of side effects may take years...

But in federal databases, thousands of Americans have reported that Covid vaccines caused ringing in the ears, dizziness, brain fog, sharp fluctuations in blood pressure and heart rate, new or relapsed autoimmune conditions, hives, vision problems, kidney disorders, tingling, numbness and a loss of motor skills.

Some studies have examined reports of side effects and largely concluded that there was no link. Closer scrutiny may reveal that many, perhaps most, of the other reported side effects are unrelated to immunization. Most of them are also associated with Covid, and may be the result of undiagnosed infections. But without in-depth studies, it is impossible to be sure, experts said.

I think we've discussed this, at length. I don't know, but I have a suspicion that such is why it took years to get a vaccine approved; i.e., thorough testing and evaluation of things such as side effects. But, what do I know. I've not had a so-called COVID 'vaccine' and I have placed my bets on naturally acquired immunity.

Why is this important?

Respiratory virus season may be ending in the United States, but a new group of COVID-19 variants are circulating, sparking concerns about a potential summer wave.

The family of variants, nicknamed "FLiRT," after their mutations, include KP.2, which is now the dominant variant in the United States. In recent weeks, KP.2 quickly overtook JN.1, the omicron subvariant that drove a surge in COVID cases this past winter.

Currently, KP.2 accounts for one in four infections nationwide, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

Another FLiRT variant, called KP.1.1, is also circulating in the U.S., but is less widespread than KP.2. It currently accounts for about 7.5% of infections nationwide, per the CDC.

Although cases and hospitalizations are down and the country is in the middle of a COVID-19 lull, the new FLiRT variants are stoking concerns about another wave of infections this summer.

Will there be another COVID-19 surge? What are the symptoms of the FLiRT variants? Are vaccines still effective? We spoke to experts to learn more...

Yep. They're trying to stoke the fires, insinuate the 'need' for a return to lockdowns, government mandates, and, most importantly...

?
?

?

?

?

?

[OlderThanDirt]

[SAN compnerd]

I'm shocked.

[LBDamned]

It's easily managed.

[twinfin]

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Yep. They're trying to stoke the fires, insinuate the 'need' for a return to lockdowns, government mandates, and, most importantly...

As much as I hate lockdowns, I think this article is just general filler to get clicks. Lockdowns for a disease will never happen as long as Dem sentiment remains below 50%, which is where it seems to be holding at. I have a feeling Dems will need something else to panic over first (e.g. economic crash, Trump winning) to clear their minds of disease, and only then would they return to it.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

As much as I hate lockdowns, I think this article is just general filler to get clicks. Lockdowns for a disease will never happen as long as Dem sentiment remains below 50%, which is where it seems to be holding at. I have a feeling Dems will need something else to panic over first (e.g. economic crash, Trump winning) to clear their minds of disease, and only then would they return to it.

The degree, immediacy, and duration was, to a certain degree, indicated by political party; at least in terms of who was 'in charge.'

But, bear in mind, that 'politics' wasn't necessarily a strictly determining factor and the 'initial response' was more... mixed.

smaller deal than it really was (ranging between 34% and 46%) or that it had been approached about right (between 40% and 48%).

In other words, Republican 'skepticism' developed or was accentuated over time and, in particular, with the change in leadership. But, initially...

very confident, compared with 33% of Democrats. Within the GOP, confidence in the CDC was about on par with confidence that Donald Trump was doing a good job responding to the outbreak (82% were at least somewhat confident).

?

[sd_shooter]

My MIL hasn't left the house in years - she'll probably die there. Still watches only CNN/MSNBC daily, wears gloves and a mask if she goes to the grocery store (her one and only weekly errand.) She refuses to go out, even with family. Someone else even buys gas for her car. All because "covid."

[Creeping Incrementalism]

The degree, immediacy, and duration was, to a certain degree, indicated by political party; at least in terms of who was 'in charge.'

In other words, Republican 'skepticism' developed or was accentuated over time and, in particular, with the change in leadership. But, initially...

I looked at the link to the Pew poll you provided. Republicans supporting the CDC more than Dems in March 2020 doesn't match with the fact that all the other poll questions showed Republicans thinking the hysteria was more overblown than the Dems did. I seem to remember Fauci, and thus maybe the CDC too, were less hysterical than the mainstream media in mid-March 2020 -- note the poll's initial date is March 10 - 16. I'll never forget Fauci being interviewed the weekend before the Bay Area locked down the following Monday (announced March 16, 2020, mid-day), saying he didn't believe American needed an Italian-style lockdown. And then not long after Fauci flipped with the wind. I bet if that poll were done in April, it would not show R's supporting the CDC more than D's.

Either way, with Biden in charge and Dem support for lockdowns being below 50%, we are safe for now.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I looked at the link to the Pew poll you provided. Republicans supporting the CDC more than Dems in March 2020 doesn't match with the fact that all the other poll questions showed Republicans thinking the hysteria was more overblown than the Dems did. I seem to remember Fauci, and thus maybe the CDC too, were less hysterical than the mainstream media in mid-March 2020 -- note the poll's initial date is March 10 - 16. I'll never forget Fauci being interviewed the weekend before the Bay Area locked down the following Monday (announced March 16, 2020, mid-day), saying he didn't believe American needed an Italian-style lockdown. And then not long after Fauci flipped with the wind. I bet if that poll were done in April, it would not show R's supporting the CDC more than D's.

Either way, with Biden in charge and Dem support for lockdowns being below 50%, we are safe for now.

Statistics aren't something one tends to want to rely on and if you want to start with "I bet if this or that poll were done at a different time," you're gonna find yourself in the realm of the Multiverse; i.e., the land of "What If?"

As I said, Republican 'skepticism' developed or was accentuated over time and, in particular, with the change in leadership. But, that doesn't change the fact that, initially, at least under Trump, many Republicans felt "confident that public health officials at the CDC were doing a good job responding to the pandemic." You could say they were, initially, supportive, but skeptical or more watchful.

This was a crucial aspect to someone like Fauci. He was all over the board in terms of what was an appropriate response. If you go back, you'll even find where I commented that he seemed to be following the strategy of saying anything and everything so that he could later point to it and exclaim... "See? I was right."

We saw the same thing on this site. Some were dubious from the beginning. Some were more inclined to take their word for it. Others were looking for answers which weren't forthcoming or which, eventually, contraindicated many of the machinations being used, put in place, and/or continued.

Likewise, if you're gonna place your bets on a certain percentage of the population or a group being at a certain number for something to happen or not, I think you're opening yourself up to grave disappointment. It's not about a certain percentage of a population supporting something for it to happen. It's about a sufficient number being willing to... take steps... to make sure it doesn't happen when it's not appropriate.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Statistics aren't something one tends to want to rely on and if you want to start with "I bet if this or that poll were done at a different time," you're gonna find yourself in the realm of the Multiverse; i.e., the land of "What If?"

As I said, Republican 'skepticism' developed or was accentuated over time and, in particular, with the change in leadership.

I'm _not_ arguing that the poll would have been different if done at a different time. My point is that Republicans thought that Covid was overblown even when Trump was in power, based on the poll when it was taken. AND the CDC was saying we should NOT lock down, at the time the poll was taken.

Another way of saying it -- the timing is that the CDC was taking the conservative position (don't lock down) at the time the poll was given.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm _not_ arguing that the poll would have been different if done at a different time. My point is that Republicans thought that Covid was overblown even when Trump was in power, based on the poll when it was taken. AND the CDC was saying we should NOT lock down, at the time the poll was taken.

Another way of saying it -- the timing is that the CDC was taking the conservative position (don't lock down) at the time the poll was given.

As we saw, the 'conservative' vs. the 'aggressive' vs. the 'wait and see' and all other approaches were run through, speculated on, et al. It's like what we knew, what we thought we knew, what we actually knew, and what we were told we didn't know also ran the gamut and continues to be that way.

It's called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking."

Go back and read that post/survey again. It says that Republicans ... were more inclined to say the pandemic had been overblown (47%) than to give any other response but thatPut another way, a plurality, not a majority, of Republicans were already inclined to say/conclude/believe that the whole thing was being overblown, but a solid majority of Republicans were confident that the CDC, et al. were doing a good job or, as I said before, you could say they were, initially, supportive, but skeptical or more watchful.

As I said, Republican 'skepticism' developed or was accentuated over time and, in particular, with the change in leadership and that seems to be precisely what the poll is indicating. It had to do, at least in some measure, with who or what polemic was in power and what their agenda was as to how the individual Parties shook out. In fact, if you read what I quote in that post, you'll find that, statistically speaking, even Democrats were somewhat 'evenly' divided, at least initially, over whether it was being handled 'about right' or if it was being 'undersold.'

The bottom line is that using statistics to make your case isn't something I'd rely on; particularly when even the statistics being presented don't necessarily support your assertions.

About 25 years ago, I told a professor, who had a specific agenda in mind and wanted me, as his PhD student assistant to conduct a survey in support of that agenda, exactly what the survey results were going to show. He said I had 'no way' of knowing that. I reminded him I'd spend a decade already working in the industry and knew what the likely responses were going to be and those responses were going to support his agenda. His response? "We can make the results how anything we want." Needless to say, the surveys came back, pretty much exactly, as I had predicted and he wanted me to skew the 'presentation' so it would support his agenda. I refused and it didn't go over well.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

I don't see how the stats don't support my point of view. I looked at the poll results again just before I posted. In mid-March 2020 the CDC did not want to lock down. Conservatives and the CDC were in agreement at that time. On the other hand, Dems wanted lockdowns and were less supportive of the CDC than Republicans.

Later, in Nov 2020, CDC supported lockdowns, and the Republican and Dem positions flipped as to who liked the CDC more.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I don't see how the stats don't support my point of view. I looked at the poll results again just before I posted. In mid-March 2020 the CDC did not want to lock down. Conservatives and the CDC were in agreement at that time. On the other hand, Dems wanted lockdowns and were less supportive of the CDC than Republicans.

Later, in Nov 2020, CDC supported lockdowns, and the Republican and Dem positions flipped as to who liked the CDC more.

Would those 'stats' even be present in this thread had I not introduced them? No. Why? Because you have a belief and an agenda. What did I just say on the other thread?

...you evidently have an 'agenda' and, similar to that professor from a quarter century ago, you're trying to present things in a manner supportive of whatever that 'agenda' is. What I'm demonstrating is that your interpretations of the supposed 'data' aren't necessarily consistent with what the 'data' actually indicated...

Of course, that is part of what 'interpretation' is definitionally defined as: "to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance." (bold/underline emphasis mine)

In a sense, it's what the professor indicated; i.e., statistics can be 'made' to support a point of view. That doesn't necessarily make the 'interpretation' or the assertions drawn therefrom 'truthful' or a representation of 'reality.'

As I said, all I've been attempting to do is give readers actual facts and context for what is presented as the basis for what YOU (not to mention what others) believe. What you (and others) choose to believe is beyond my ken. How you and others come to that choice, however, is something which, by necessity, should be 'tempered' lest you fall into the same 'trap' many did who sided with what was done.

Remember, not everything was done by everyone as part of nefarious machination. Many, maybe even most, did so with the 'best of intentions.' Of course, we all know the saying about 'good intentions' and road paving to a particular destination.

In that sense, what I have been hoping to do is shed a little light on the conclusions you've drawn so that you and others might see that you have been engaged in some 'road paving' where the destination you are bound for isn't necessarily a 'better' one.?

[karsk]

just the first point is highly debatable

For most people, the benefits of Covid vaccines outweigh any risks..