Some are still afraid of co-vid and still want some form of immunity, yet don't want to risk getting the vaccines.

-

You seem to be forgetting/not taking into account all the cases of people who had co-vid when they passed from some other primary COD, yet still got marked as co-vid by hospitals/etc(which was done in part by medical facilities to claim the govt money for such).

When taking such into account(like cases where someone with co-vid passed due to things like a car crash who got marked as passing from co-vid) and only counting mortalities with co-vid as the primary COD, the percentages go somewhat lower.

Aren't those conspiracy theories? Mortality rates seem to be close all over the world. Higher in some countries that got their health system overwhelmed and very dependent on testing capacity, but close. Why would all doctors in all countries in the world coordinate to lie about causes of death like that?

Not to mention that the increases in excess mortality, when available, are higher than the official death count from Covid in countries all over the world, from authoritarian regimes to democracies with governments leaning one way or the other (and that's without the flu season this year): https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938

Talking about orders of magnitude, I don't think you understand the difference between 1.17% dying and 0.04% dying from covid. 96% of the deaths from Covid would need to be misclassified for it to reach that number. Do you think that's plausible?

Ah, correction on interpreting calculations. Your chances of dying from COVID-19 in the US is 1059x higher than dying after getting a vaccine. The 109x was in reference was comparing actual infection rates with the theoretical infection rate (0.094%) to stay below so that not getting a vaccine is more advantageous from a risk perspective.

No, it wasn't. The paper's focus was on 958 cases who had mild or no symptoms. 28 of the cases were hospitalized and included in the data, but the remaining 930 (97.1%) cases weren't hospitalized at all. You cannot remove those 28 hospitalized cases without compromising the integrity of the data and its results, so that info is left with the authors.

The 12.8-27.8% is the conditional probability of having long-term COVID-19 symptoms if you get sick.

P(long-term | infected) = 12.8-27.8%
P(US infected) = 10.2%
P(long-term) = P(long-term | infected) * P(infected)
P(long-term) = 1.31-2.84% (contrast to P(US deaths) = 601k/328.2M = 0.183%)

So theoretically by applying the same probabilities, 1.31-2.84% of the entire American population would be suffering from a long-term COVID-19 symptoms 7 months after onset of COVID-19. But it still doesn't change the fact that if you tested positive and you have mild or no symptoms that you have a 12.8-27.8% of suffering one of these symptoms 7 months later.

Let's take the 1.31% suffering from long-term COVID-19. And let's re-add the side effects and death after vaccine stat. For simplification, we assume the proportions are similar to the rest of the US population who hasn't got a vaccine yet.

1909 side effects + 5343 deaths = 7,252 negative vaccine effects
7252 negative vaccine cases / 310M vaccines = 2.34e-5 = 0.00234% negative vaccine effect (if you take the vaccine)
n = 1.31% / 0.00234% = 560x more likely to get long-term COVID-19 symptoms 7 months in than a negative effect from the vaccine
n = 0.183% / 0.00234% = 78.2x more likely to die from COVID-19 than get a negative effect from the vaccine

P(negative vaccine effect) = P(US death | infected)*P(US infected)
2.34e-5 = 0.0179 * P(US infection)
P(US infection) = 0.00131 = 0.131% of the US population would have to be infected for the risk of dying from COVID-19 to be the same as the risk of getting a negative effect from a vaccine.

n = 10.2% / 0.131% = 77.9

If we look at these calculations only, the only way NOT getting a vaccine is advantageous for you is if you take enough precautions so that you have < 0.131% of contracting the virus. But based on simple probability of the US population so far, it doesn't look good considering it's 77.9x higher in actuality. Again, your chances of getting long-term COVID-19 or dying from it is 560x or 78.2x higher respectively than the probability of getting any negative side effect from any vaccine. You should keep in mind this is official US government count and doesn't include asymptomatic people who didn't get tested, which further worsens the case against vaccines. All of these conservative calculations have been working in your favour the entire time.

Of course, if you're looking for stats based on your age, gender, race, weight, co-morbidities, etc. you would have to filter out all the data shown thus far from these multiple data sources. But given what I've calculated, I think I've proven in general how getting vaccines greatly reduces your risk of long-term COVID-19 or dying from it compared to going unvaccinated.

The blood clot thing is like 1 in 200,000 so pretty long odds, but apparently for women on birth-control pills it's way less.

No, it was actually happening....in the US, at least(and possibly elsewhere, though I can mainly only verify the US atm). There are several writeups/articles/etc about it, iirc.

As I said, I dunno about other countries atm, but they did so in a number of US hospitals due to a lack of incoming income. Most non-critical procedures/visits were put on hold last year, and the hospitals got subsidies of tens of thousands of dollars per each person marked as co-vid....so even if someone passed from say cancer or a car crash, they would mark it as co-vid to claim that subsidy money.

I think you misread that other user's numbers...they said 0.4%, not 0.04%.

=-=-=

This is what I meant.....1.3% isn't that much of a risk, imo, to risk trying an experimental rushed treatment.

Now if there were more long term tests done to better prove it's safety, and I was in a higher risk group(65+, etc) than i'd be more likely to want to get such treatments.

=-=-=

That's a relief.

1) You think it's actually happening because "there are several writeups/articles/etc about it"? There are thousands of writeups/articles/etc about the bigfoot, aliens visiting the Earth and all kinds of nonsense. Why would that be proof of anything happening?

2) I check the data from a series of countries regularly and your theory about hospitals lying about causes of death to get money is a bit absurd. Countries with all kinds of health systems got similar mortality numbers to the US, so I don't think this weird theory makes any sense.

3) The other used said 99.96% survivability rate for the 60+ age group. I don't think I have to explain how decimals work, you would agree.

The dangerous blood clots are something like a 1-in-a-million chance, and are likely to appear in the first week, so if they got it over a week ago, they're probably past the window where it would occur. Also, I believe doctors know how to handle those clots, particularly since they know that it can happen.

Actually, hydroxychloroquine was shown to not be effective against COVID-19, so the WHO no longer recommends its use for that purpose.

[url=https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine]https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine[/url]
I've heard about the flu vaccine being worse than the COVID-19 vaccine in terms of side effects.

You mean the same WHO which said that the wuhan lab theory was a load of baloney and which also changed the definition of herd immunity from "vaccines or natural immunity" to "only vaccines" just this year? The same WHO was has flip flopped on a number of things(like masks being needed or not) re: co-vid?

Yes , all these "It can happen" is more or less useless without having reliable statistics.
and around one in a million while nothing basically is negligible

The same WHO headed by a man accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement and complicity in genocide.

I am not sure about that probability. From what I read, when you do a haemogram and measure the D-dimere value before and after the shot., in a lot of people the value points to thrombotic events.

Just because you do not end up in an ICU or hospital does not mean you had no thrombotic events in your body.

Musing: I find it interesting that so many(generally speaking) rightly feel that people should try to avoid getting sick with co-vid, but that people should just blindly take something big pharma created in less than 1/3 the R&D time of a normal vaccine.

(before anyone chimes in "they cut down on red tape"....I know, and am ok with that....I am, however, not okay with them cutting out long term health effect studies as well)

And all the while you're walking around feeling fine you're infecting others. The vaccine helps your amazing immune system react faster and shed less virus.

I don't know why I'm replying, you are and always have been a troll.

EDIT: I'm very curious as to whether I'm low rated for explaining why it's important for a healthy person to be vaccinated or for calling Orkhepaj a troll. Both of these things are true.

I am pretty sure that the studies haven't stopped, and that at least some vaccine companies are seeking full approval (rather than just emergency use authorization, which is what has been granted so far) of their vaccines.