** Posting as a member **
I'm really puzzled by truthsetmefree's post. Again, I wonder about the sources that led to the opinions.
For example, it looks like the mortality in the US is quite a bit greater than 1% in raw numbers, and it climbs even higher if you look at 'excess death' numbers.
Similarly, comments are taken out of context. For example, millions of deaths were expected before any vaccines or treatments were available. I think it's indisputable that the prediction would have come true without treatments/vaccines. If I were a pharmacy, I would have refused to fill a 'script for HCQ or Ivermectin, too - the data just doesn't support these as treatments for Covid.
But I'm pretty sure there's no point in discussing each questionable assertion....
I was told early in my career that 'the guy with the numbers wins'. That was my experience as a techie, supervisor, manager, and consultant - when I had the more believable numbers, I almost always won; when someone else had the more believable numbers, I lost. When I look at Covid-19 numbers, the CDC, WHO, NY Times, Hopkins, etc. are among the most believable I've seen.
I trust pharma and hospitals to line their corporate execs' pockets above all. But the statistics are pretty clearly in favor of the vaccines. If they weren't, I expect some journalists to uncover the frauds, and I expect I'd find their reports. Most US statistics are generated for the benefit of businesses. US statsistics have proved valuable to businesses in so very many contexts. Why mistrust the CDC? And why trust dsites that question govt. statistics without evidence?
A lot of conspiracy theories are floating around, probably more than usual. If you search the web on 'covid test misinformation' you'll find an interesting story about websites spreading misinformation about - you guessed it - covid testing. Why believe those sites? What do they say that evokes belief?
Do readers not ask themselves what the websites have to gain by publishing the misinformation?
We used to have some sheets that I guarantee looked green to me. Blue is my favorite color, and I see blue everywhere. But plainsong tells me those sheets were blue. Now, maybe she was gaslighting me - but maybe most other people would call them 'blue', too. Why don't conspiracy theorists question their own beliefs, just to be sure?
I know I took risks in adopting a vaccine early. I decided to take the risks. I saw then and continue to see a staggering preponderance of believable evidence on one side.
I can understand reasoned objections, and some of truthsetmefree's post lays them out. The vaxes came awfully quickly, perhaps too quickly to be trusted. The vaxes probably have unintended consequences; it would be really unusual if they didn't. I understand and agree with refusing to be vaxed upon competent medical advice or if one had an unusually bad reaction to a first shot. I can see refusing to accept an EUA from the FDA.
But to say 'they're not vaccines' because they don't protect everybody 100%? To ignore the context in which recommendations were made and changed? To attack something because it was based on certain conditions, and the conditions changed? To expect anyone to predict the future? Those are unreasonable expectations, IMO.