Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!
-
After nearly two years of harsh lockdowns and vaccine mandates, Australia’s Prime Minister declares that if you suffered any adverse effects from the vaccines they forced on you, it’s your fault. After all, you didn’t have to work, or go to school, or go to the supermarket.
-
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
After nearly two years of harsh lockdowns and vaccine mandates, Australia’s Prime Minister declares that if you suffered any adverse effects from the vaccines they forced on you, it’s your fault. After all, you didn’t have to work, or go to school, or go to the supermarket.
Robert Malone: "Soon there will be hundreds of health officials saying it was your choice, we didn't make you take it."
Filed under: is "I told you" by proxy garage material?
-
@MrL said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
After nearly two years of harsh lockdowns and vaccine mandates, Australia’s Prime Minister declares that if you suffered any adverse effects from the vaccines they forced on you, it’s your fault. After all, you didn’t have to work, or go to school, or go to the supermarket.
Robert Malone: "Soon there will be hundreds of health officials saying it was your choice, we didn't make you take it."
Don't know about you, but I had to sign a statement to that effect when taking mine.
-
@GOG said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@MrL said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
After nearly two years of harsh lockdowns and vaccine mandates, Australia’s Prime Minister declares that if you suffered any adverse effects from the vaccines they forced on you, it’s your fault. After all, you didn’t have to work, or go to school, or go to the supermarket.
Robert Malone: "Soon there will be hundreds of health officials saying it was your choice, we didn't make you take it."
Don't know about you, but I had to sign a statement to that effect when taking mine.
If I put a gun to your head you'll sign everything I tell you to.
-
@MrL Yep.
-
The German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern did not want to reduce the Covid restrictions. And tried a trick: the current law allows for continuing the restrictions in "hotspots". So, the state government declared the whole state to be a hotspot.
A court showed them the finger: the hotspot rule is at the level of county, not at the level of state!
Corona: Hotspot-Regelung in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern teilweise gekippt
In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern hat ein Gericht die noch bestehenden Corona-Schutzmaßnahmen teilweise gekippt. Hamburg wird ab Mai die Sieben-Tage-Inzidenz nur noch einmal pro Woche mitteilen.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
A court showed them the finger: the hotspot rule is at the level of county, not at the level of state!
Simple. Declare every county a hotspot.
-
@HardwareGeek But that must be done by some official in each county, it cannot be done by state government... (but I guess they'll try).
-
From an FDA document dump related to the Pfizer COVID shot trials:
-
Is that specific to this vaccine? I wouldn't be surprised if it was a routine clause in pharmaceuticals trials.
-
@Zerosquare Why were the shots authorized for pregnant women if testing was explicitly not done in that population?
-
@lolwhat likely a risk mitigation in two or three parts, depending how you count:
- Conducting a human trial excluding categories deemed unacceptable to test on e.g gregnancy
- Conducting as representative as possible animal or in-vitro trials for effects on such categories e.g. pargnit mice
- Using the combined results to estimate risk for the excluded human categories
As to why to exclude prangent women, you want to look way farther back than Jenny McCarthy or Zikavirus, to thalidomide. Those flipperbabies just creeped everyone out.
-
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why were the shots authorized for pregnant women if testing was explicitly not done in that population?
It's a good question, but again, it's the same for almost every other medical trial:
Pregnant women have been historically excluded from clinical and pharmacologic trials for nonobstetric conditions. This is due to several factors including “ethical” concerns about fetal exposure, liability risk, lack of interest from pharmaceutical companies, and complex regulations. Of all industry-sponsored trials in the United States in 2013, only 1% were specifically designed for pregnant women and 98% of trials that involved a drug or device excluded them. On the other hand, the proportion of pregnant women with coexisting medical conditions continues to rise likely due to advanced age at the time of pregnancy and higher rates of obesity and medical comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and depression, among others.
-
@Zerosquare like I said, it's a giant conspiracy.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it's the same for almost every other medical trial
"It's the way we've always done it." Sigh.
-
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why were the shots authorized for pregnant women if testing was explicitly not done in that population?
It's a good question, but again, it's the same for almost every other medical trial:
Pregnant women have been historically excluded from clinical and pharmacologic trials for nonobstetric conditions. This is due to several factors including “ethical” concerns about fetal exposure, liability risk, lack of interest from pharmaceutical companies, and complex regulations. Of all industry-sponsored trials in the United States in 2013, only 1% were specifically designed for pregnant women and 98% of trials that involved a drug or device excluded them. On the other hand, the proportion of pregnant women with coexisting medical conditions continues to rise likely due to advanced age at the time of pregnancy and higher rates of obesity and medical comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and depression, among others.
Sure. But isn't the counterpoint to that that they don't give most medicine to pregnant woman because it hasn't been tested to see how it affects the child?
Also, the medical establishment shouted from the rooftops that the vaccine didn't harm unborn children. Employer vaccine mandates, including from governments, explicitly demanded that pregnant women get the vaccine.
Where did that guidance come from?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why were the shots authorized for pregnant women if testing was explicitly not done in that population?
It's a good question, but again, it's the same for almost every other medical trial:
Pregnant women have been historically excluded from clinical and pharmacologic trials for nonobstetric conditions. This is due to several factors including “ethical” concerns about fetal exposure, liability risk, lack of interest from pharmaceutical companies, and complex regulations. Of all industry-sponsored trials in the United States in 2013, only 1% were specifically designed for pregnant women and 98% of trials that involved a drug or device excluded them. On the other hand, the proportion of pregnant women with coexisting medical conditions continues to rise likely due to advanced age at the time of pregnancy and higher rates of obesity and medical comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and depression, among others.
Sure. But isn't the counterpoint to that that they don't give most medicine to pregnant woman because it hasn't been tested to see how it affects the child?
Also, the medical establishment shouted from the rooftops that the vaccine didn't harm unborn children. Employer vaccine mandates, including from governments, explicitly demanded that pregnant women get the vaccine.
Where did that guidance come from?
When did that start?
It seems pretty logical to me that you would do the trials including pregnant women after those excluding pregnant women.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why were the shots authorized for pregnant women if testing was explicitly not done in that population?
It's a good question, but again, it's the same for almost every other medical trial:
Pregnant women have been historically excluded from clinical and pharmacologic trials for nonobstetric conditions. This is due to several factors including “ethical” concerns about fetal exposure, liability risk, lack of interest from pharmaceutical companies, and complex regulations. Of all industry-sponsored trials in the United States in 2013, only 1% were specifically designed for pregnant women and 98% of trials that involved a drug or device excluded them. On the other hand, the proportion of pregnant women with coexisting medical conditions continues to rise likely due to advanced age at the time of pregnancy and higher rates of obesity and medical comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and depression, among others.
Sure. But isn't the counterpoint to that that they don't give most medicine to pregnant woman because it hasn't been tested to see how it affects the child?
Also, the medical establishment shouted from the rooftops that the vaccine didn't harm unborn children. Employer vaccine mandates, including from governments, explicitly demanded that pregnant women get the vaccine.
Where did that guidance come from?
When did that start?
It seems pretty logical to me that you would do the trials including pregnant women after those excluding pregnant women.
It took 7 months to go from "The NCAA basketball tournament is cancelled" to "We have this vaccine."
It took less than 7 months to go from "We have this vaccine" to "Servicemembers in the US military who are pregnant are facing discipline for refusing the vaccine."
How long did it take to run the trials with pregnant women? What were the dates?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why were the shots authorized for pregnant women if testing was explicitly not done in that population?
It's a good question, but again, it's the same for almost every other medical trial:
Pregnant women have been historically excluded from clinical and pharmacologic trials for nonobstetric conditions. This is due to several factors including “ethical” concerns about fetal exposure, liability risk, lack of interest from pharmaceutical companies, and complex regulations. Of all industry-sponsored trials in the United States in 2013, only 1% were specifically designed for pregnant women and 98% of trials that involved a drug or device excluded them. On the other hand, the proportion of pregnant women with coexisting medical conditions continues to rise likely due to advanced age at the time of pregnancy and higher rates of obesity and medical comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and depression, among others.
Sure. But isn't the counterpoint to that that they don't give most medicine to pregnant woman because it hasn't been tested to see how it affects the child?
Also, the medical establishment shouted from the rooftops that the vaccine didn't harm unborn children. Employer vaccine mandates, including from governments, explicitly demanded that pregnant women get the vaccine.
Where did that guidance come from?
When did that start?
It seems pretty logical to me that you would do the trials including pregnant women after those excluding pregnant women.
It took 7 months to go from "The NCAA basketball tournament is cancelled" to "We have this vaccine."
It took less than 7 months to go from "We have this vaccine" to "Servicemembers in the US military who are pregnant are facing discipline for refusing the vaccine."
How long did it take to run the trials with pregnant women? What were the dates?
You didn’t answer my question. Just trying to prevent you
.If you have a legitimate point of complaint, a factual answer will actually strengthen that. But so far, this whole thing looks like: oh no, look at this
secret document dump that proves this is all massive fraud, when it really contains nothing that’s surprising or hasn’t been public knowledge.Especially the claim that “testing was explicitly not done in this population.” That’s like citing the study setup for animal trials and concluding that the vaccines were never tested in humans, or citing the phase I trials and claiming that the vaccines were only tested for safety and never for efficacy.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Where did that guidance come from?
goatse
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Why were the shots authorized for pregnant women if testing was explicitly not done in that population?
It's a good question, but again, it's the same for almost every other medical trial:
Pregnant women have been historically excluded from clinical and pharmacologic trials for nonobstetric conditions. This is due to several factors including “ethical” concerns about fetal exposure, liability risk, lack of interest from pharmaceutical companies, and complex regulations. Of all industry-sponsored trials in the United States in 2013, only 1% were specifically designed for pregnant women and 98% of trials that involved a drug or device excluded them. On the other hand, the proportion of pregnant women with coexisting medical conditions continues to rise likely due to advanced age at the time of pregnancy and higher rates of obesity and medical comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and depression, among others.
Sure. But isn't the counterpoint to that that they don't give most medicine to pregnant woman because it hasn't been tested to see how it affects the child?
Also, the medical establishment shouted from the rooftops that the vaccine didn't harm unborn children. Employer vaccine mandates, including from governments, explicitly demanded that pregnant women get the vaccine.
Where did that guidance come from?
When did that start?
It seems pretty logical to me that you would do the trials including pregnant women after those excluding pregnant women.
It took 7 months to go from "The NCAA basketball tournament is cancelled" to "We have this vaccine."
It took less than 7 months to go from "We have this vaccine" to "Servicemembers in the US military who are pregnant are facing discipline for refusing the vaccine."
How long did it take to run the trials with pregnant women? What were the dates?
You didn’t answer my question. Just trying to prevent you
.sigh. What I actually said is that they didn't run a full length trial of the COVID vaccine harmful to children if their mother takes it while they're pregnant because the vaccine hasn't been around long enough to have run that test. Don't they usually take 5-10 years?
But fine. The COVID mandate for the US Army was officially announced in mid-September of 2021. (The other services came out with their versions of the mandates +/- a week from then.) There were Soldiers discipled under local rules for vaccine refusal because they were pregnant prior to that, but the Army-wide rule went into effect in mid-September of 2021.
Also, the other thing that the leak implied was that they didn't test the vaccine for people trying to become pregnant. In December of 2020, the University of Miami announced that they were starting a study on how the vaccine affects fertility (in both men and women) and that it would take a year to do data collection because "a fertility problem" is defined as "trying to get pregnant for a year but can't."
As far as I know, that study hasn't been published yet, but the vaccine mandates went into effect with promises that the vaccine doesn't affect fertility prior to the end of data collection.
If you have a legitimate point of complaint, a factual answer will actually strengthen that.
Yup. This has been the history of COVID-19.
But so far, this whole thing looks like: oh no, look at this
secret document dump that proves this is all massive fraud, when it really contains nothing that’s surprising or hasn’t been public knowledge.
. Yes, everyone knew that they didn't test the vaccine in pregnant people or people trying to become pregnant. That was public knowledge. The real question is why they were saying the vaccine was safe in those categories.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But so far, this whole thing looks like: oh no, look at this
secret document dump that proves this is all massive fraud, when it really contains nothing that’s surprising or hasn’t been public knowledge.. Yes, everyone knew that they didn't test the vaccine in pregnant people or people trying to become pregnant. That was public knowledge. The real question is why they were saying the vaccine was safe in those categories.They ran the trials without pregnant people first and did the trials with pregnant people later. That’s not surprising, or a shocking leak, that’s a reasonable thing to do.
-
First vaccinations in the US started in end of December 2020, trials including pregnant women started two months after that:
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But so far, this whole thing looks like: oh no, look at this
secret document dump that proves this is all massive fraud, when it really contains nothing that’s surprising or hasn’t been public knowledge.. Yes, everyone knew that they didn't test the vaccine in pregnant people or people trying to become pregnant. That was public knowledge. The real question is why they were saying the vaccine was safe in those categories.They ran the trials without pregnant people first and did the trials with pregnant people later. That’s not surprising, or a shocking leak, that’s a reasonable thing to do.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
First vaccinations in the US started in end of December 2020, trials including pregnant women started two months after that:
Now who's
?Yes, starting a separate study on pregnant women in February of 2021 was a reasonable thing to do. When did that study end? When were the results published?
Was it before or after vaccine mandates that affected pregnant women went into effect?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But so far, this whole thing looks like: oh no, look at this
secret document dump that proves this is all massive fraud, when it really contains nothing that’s surprising or hasn’t been public knowledge.. Yes, everyone knew that they didn't test the vaccine in pregnant people or people trying to become pregnant. That was public knowledge. The real question is why they were saying the vaccine was safe in those categories.They ran the trials without pregnant people first and did the trials with pregnant people later. That’s not surprising, or a shocking leak, that’s a reasonable thing to do.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
First vaccinations in the US started in end of December 2020, trials including pregnant women started two months after that:
Now who's
?I was pointing out that the original implication that there haven’t been studies including pregnant women was pure nonsense.
Yes, starting a separate study on pregnant women in February of 2021 was a reasonable thing to do. When did that study end? When were the results published?
Was it before or after vaccine mandates that affected pregnant women went into effect?
Now, that’s a better question to ask.
One I found ended June 3, but of course since multiple studies might have been performed in parallel, it could well be not the first to give informed results:
Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy
Nature Medicine - In an observational cohort of pregnant women in Israel, the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine was found to have effectiveness similar to that seen in the general population.
The question whether there should be mandates for pregnant women is a separate issue (the answer is clearly no), but the assertion that there’s been no studies including pregnant women is completely bogus.
-
They're onto us. Scrub and regroup.
-
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But so far, this whole thing looks like: oh no, look at this
secret document dump that proves this is all massive fraud, when it really contains nothing that’s surprising or hasn’t been public knowledge.. Yes, everyone knew that they didn't test the vaccine in pregnant people or people trying to become pregnant. That was public knowledge. The real question is why they were saying the vaccine was safe in those categories.They ran the trials without pregnant people first and did the trials with pregnant people later. That’s not surprising, or a shocking leak, that’s a reasonable thing to do.
@topspin said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
First vaccinations in the US started in end of December 2020, trials including pregnant women started two months after that:
Now who's
?I was pointing out that the original implication that there haven’t been studies including pregnant women was pure nonsense.
Who cares?
The question isn't really if there have been studies that included pregnant women.
The question is if there was a trial that showed if the vaccine was safe for a pregnant woman and her unborn baby that was released before the vaccine mandates started.
That was the justification for the vaccine mandates, and it was not true. The people who are outraged about this are right to be.
Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy
Nature Medicine - In an observational cohort of pregnant women in Israel, the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine was found to have effectiveness similar to that seen in the general population.
The question whether there should be mandates for pregnant women is a separate issue (the answer is clearly no), but the assertion that there’s been no studies including pregnant women is completely bogus.
Yes. This study includes pregnant women.
That is completely irrelevant to the question people are asking. The study asks whether the one vaccine they tested works at stopping COVID in pregnant women.
It has no data on if the COVID vaccine has side effects that hurt the mother or the unborn child, which is what people actually care about.
Maybe there's been a clinical trial since that tests the safety of the vaccine for expecting mothers and unborn children. (Has there been? I don't even know.)
But the mandates were justified based on Science that didn't really exist at the time. That's why people who are hearing about this for the first time think it's a cover up.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear I appreciate your passion for rational discourse.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The question is if there was a trial that showed if the vaccine was safe for a pregnant woman and her unborn baby that was released before the vaccine mandates started.
Have you tried looking at all for such studies yourself?
Easily found example: Reference 9 from @topspin's link: Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons. Since it's cited in @topspin's publication, it clearly predates it.
This predates the US army mandates that you mentioned somewhere upthread; @topspin's study was concluded, submitted and accepted before the introduction of the mandates (which according to my googling first came about in late August 2021, with an additional memorandum in October - which, by the way, includes links to additional sources claiming that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women).
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
The question is if there was a trial that showed if the vaccine was safe for a pregnant woman and her unborn baby that was released before the vaccine mandates started.
Have you tried looking at all for such studies yourself?
Easily found example: Reference 9 from @topspin's link: Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons. Since it's cited in @topspin's publication, it clearly predates it.
Not really? This is
ry and I'm not sure the changes matter, but the original study had errors in the results, and the correction came after it was cited in the Israeli study @topspin posted.Anyway, the corrected version of the data looked at two and a half months of data and
Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births.
14% of completed pregnanies in this study were "pregnancy losses," which means that the child died. I'm not a doctor, but that seems really high to me.
I'd expect to see some sort of comparison to a control group here of pregnancy outcomes among women who didn't get the vaccine, but this study doesn't include one. If I had to guess, I'd bet it's because a hair over 800 completed pregnancies isn't enough to draw statistically valid conclusions.
I understand why they did what they did here. It was an emergency, and what this study actually says is that it's not too dangerous to be unethical to do a full longitudinal study with meaningful sample sizes and a meaningful observation period.
I'm sure they're currently doing that study, and maybe it will come out that the vaccine is actually safe for pregnant women and unborn children. But this study doesn't have a big enough denominator to justify basing vaccine mandates on it.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
14% of completed pregnanies in this study were "pregnancy losses," which means that the child died. I'm not a doctor, but that seems really high to me.
I'm not a MD either, but the information is easy to find. The correspondence that you mention says that this is consistent with findings in the general population. Wikipedia mentions rates between 10 and 20% (you can track down the sources they used); NHS in the UK (which was among early google hits) says just about 1 in 8 among people who know they were pregnant.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
14% of completed pregnanies in this study were "pregnancy losses," which means that the child died. I'm not a doctor, but that seems really high to me.
I'm not a MD either, but the information is easy to find. The correspondence that you mention says that this is consistent with findings in the general population. Wikipedia mentions rates between 10 and 20% (you can track down the sources they used); NHS in the UK (which was among early google hits) says just about 1 in 8 among people who know they were pregnant.
For one thing, the UK rate of 12.5% of pregnancies ending in miscarriage is probably inflated compared to the American rate because the NHS counts neonatal deaths as miscarriages in certain cases where Americans would count it as the death of a very young child who was born and died shortly after.
But if 12.5%, or something close to it, is such a well known statistic, why didn't they include that number in the study? Why didn't they get their own sample of pregnant women who weren't vaccinated and compare pregnancy outcomes between the control group and the treatment group?
To hear the NEJM study tell it. that study was intended to provide preliminary results as a basis for further study, i.e. it's not obviously too dangerous and too immoral to run a full clinical trial of this. The reason that they didn't do a control group was because even if they had a control group, there were enough flaws in how this study worked (notably, 800 pregnancies semi-observed for two and a half months is not a large enough sample size) that it would be irresponsible to base public policy on that study.
The point of the NEJM study was to justify a full clinical trial. And maybe you make public policy and initiate vaccine mandates based on a real clinical trial.
But anyone who points at this NEJM study and uses it claim that the COIVD vaccine is safe enough for pregnant women to justify mandating the vaccine is misrepresenting the limitations of the study.
-
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@Zerosquare said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
it's the same for almost every other medical trial
"It's the way we've always done it." Sigh.
Where do you think they get test subjects from? Most medical students are not pregnant.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear Let me ask again my original question - have you tried to do any research into this topic yourself? Did you go look for whatever information the decisions you're criticizing ware based on?
My impression here is that you're mostly posting off the seat of your pants. So far I'm only seeing you responding superficially to whatever others have posted. At no point have you even claimed to have looked at this into any detail in your own time, and you've provided even less evidence of doing so.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@GuyWhoKilledBear Let me ask again my original question - have you tried to do any research into this topic yourself? Did you go look for whatever information the decisions you're criticizing ware based on?
I have. I looked at the available data on how the vaccine interacts with fertility, pregnancy, and the specific health conditions my wife and I have and it didn't look like they sufficiently ruled out bad side effects to justify getting the vaccine. Especially compared with the low risk of serious injury from actually getting COVID.
And then we both had to get it anyway due to vaccine mandates that the government "encouraged" our employers to enforce. Did that have life ruining consequences? Frankly, it's too soon to say.
Thanks for your compassion, though.
My impression here is that you're mostly posting off the seat of your pants. So far I'm only seeing you responding superficially to whatever others have posted. At no point have you even claimed to have looked at this into any detail in your own time, and you've provided even less evidence of doing so.
I'm supposed to Google your argument for you?
My impression here is that you've got the burden of proof arrow pointed in the wrong direction. For a generally healthy person, the risk of having serious harm from getting COVID is very low. Too low, in fact, to justify a vaccine mandate for anyone. Much less pregnant women, for whom we never mandate any vaccines ever.
If you want to claim that COVID is so bad and the vaccine is so good, that's an extraordinary intervention that's supposed to require extraordinary proof. And more proof than that, by the way, if you want to make the vaccine mandatory.
What happened here is that the public health establishment claimed to have had that proof. They did not. They misrepresented the evidence that they had to claim that it made a broader proof than it actually made. People were on the lookout for this technique because they did the same thing with lockdowns and with masks.
You're asking me to prove a negative, and pretending that I'm a bad person or uneducated or talking out of my ass or something because I'm not citing medical research at you, some internet douchebag, that no one would have listened to me if I held it up and said that the vaccine is too dangerous for me and my wife to get.
For one thing, it's impossible to prove a negative. For another thing, you're the one trying to convince me that an extraordinary claim is true, so I've been waiting for you to post real evidence that justifies a vaccine mandate that applies to pregnant women. As far as I can tell, they're working on the clinical trial that the NEJM study alludes to, but they're not done with it yet and so it hasn't been published yet. Vaccine mandates have been in effect for over a year, though.
The standard response to asking for this kind of evidence, both from internet douchebags and the actual public health establishment, is to present stuff that isn't actually evidence.
Pull. Requests. Accepted.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear your emotive risk accessor repo needs to be public first, beeeeeyatch.
Also where's the rest of your decision factors? Those seem edited, as the paranoia is not declared.
-
MIT study finds COVID vaccines 'significantly associated' with jump in emergency heart problems
Israeli data on 16-39 year-olds adds fuel to campaigns against coerced jabs. Italian court strikes down mandate, and U.S. pilots accuse FAA of ignoring severe adverse reactions among pilots.
COVID-19 vaccination was "significantly associated" with a 25% jump in emergency medical services (EMS) for heart problems in 16-39 year-olds in Israel, whose vaccination rate is among the world's highest, according to a peer-reviewed study by MIT researchers.
Published last week in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, the study found no association with COVID infections, however.
Oof.
-
@boomzilla So let me get this straight. This study found that, at least in some age cohorts, COVID infection status wasn't much correlated with heart issues severe enough to require EMS? But COVID shot status was correlated with severe heart issues?
-
@lolwhat said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla So let me get this straight. This study found that, at least in some age cohorts, COVID infection status wasn't much correlated with heart issues severe enough to require EMS? But COVID shot status was correlated with severe heart issues?
I just read it. Yes, no statistically significant increase in correlation to covid, but 'close tracking' with administering of second vax dose (and first dose for those cured of covid).
-
@MrL Cool, thanks for confirming.
-
Covid: World’s true pandemic death toll nearly 15 million, says WHO
These include deaths from Covid and from the indirect effects of the pandemic over two years worldwide.
The WHO believes many countries undercounted the numbers who died from Covid - only 5.4 million were reported.
Hmm. (tl;dr- it's looking at excess deaths during the pandemic.)
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
Covid: World’s true pandemic death toll nearly 15 million, says WHO
These include deaths from Covid and from the indirect effects of the pandemic over two years worldwide.
The WHO believes many countries undercounted the numbers who died from Covid - only 5.4 million were reported.
Hmm. (tl;dr- it's looking at excess deaths during the pandemic.)
Lets not bother with the countries that reported "died with covid" instead "died of covid". Such as
And lets not forget the countries that simply gave the elderly palliative care instead of trying to keep them alive, and then made those count as covid deaths.
-
The hardest part about stargazing, of course, is that there are so very few stars.
-
@Carnage It includes even more than that. A bit shoddy reporting by the BBC it seems - the WHO news item and data presentation actually mentions this explicitly:
Excess mortality includes deaths associated with COVID-19 directly (due to the disease) or indirectly (due to the pandemic’s impact on health systems and society) [...]
-
@cvi the BBC's onebox includes it, even if the article only sort of does
These include deaths from Covid and from the indirect effects of the pandemic over two years worldwide.
-
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
deaths associated with COVID-19 directly (due to the disease) or indirectly (due to the pandemic’s impact on health systems and society)
Yes, but someone who died, say, in a car accident but happened to have a positive COVID test doesn't belong in either of those categories.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@cvi said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
deaths associated with COVID-19 directly (due to the disease) or indirectly (due to the pandemic’s impact on health systems and society)
Yes, but someone who died, say, in a car accident but happened to have a positive COVID test doesn't belong in either of those categories.
"Excess deaths" is a statistical exercise. You assume that this year should look something like the previous year with some demographic adjustments and over a certain margin of uncertainty you declare deaths to be in excess of what you expected. So death from accidents would already be baked in.
Now, in the US traffic deaths went up, especially compared to miles driven during COVID. There are good reasons to attribute those increased deaths to other causes. Interestingly, they fell disproportionately on blacks and (to a lesser extent) Hispanics.
But then again the overall numbers are small in relation to the excess death total
-
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But then again the overall numbers are small in relation to the excess death total
If the signal is big enough, the impact of the noise on it will be minimal.
-
@dkf said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
@boomzilla said in Tales from Coronavee-rooss Italy, mamma mia!:
But then again the overall numbers are small in relation to the excess death total
If the signal is big enough, the impact of the noise on it will be minimal.
It's not really noise, just a different signal.
-
@boomzilla Excess deaths is the correct metric to judge how well different countries fared in the crisis. Because at the end of the day it does not matter if you die of covid or of heart attack because nobody had time to treat your arteriosclerosis. Of course being just a single number it's too coarse to indicate which measures helped and which actually hurt.
It Was Your Own Choice - Vox Popoli
