🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Eris

Wrong again, I am not talking about only PCR tests.

@Oblivia

@Eris Sorry it doesnt work that way... There is no "COVID deaths list"... there are many different lists and each one you must understand the criteria. There is VARES, there is the CDC preliminary, there is the CDC finalized, there are doubple blind sampled studies, and many hundreds if not thousands of different lists.

The problem with not being educated on the topic are exactly these sort of inane simplifications.

@bebe

Each listing of covid numbers also has its own definition of what qualifies as a covid death. Thi s is nothing unusual. The problem is when laypeople try to take those lists and make statements like "these are the number of people who died from covid". The collection of the datais fair honest and transparent, people are just too stupid to understand what the data means.

Data scientists use the list of data with an understanding of how the deaths are defined. This is why we almost always use lists that are from double blind samples that actually sequence the genome or clearly test for it in some way.

@swiley

@Eris

I already explicitly gave one example. The lie that the VARES confirms thousands of vaccine deaths, which is explicitly false.

@swiley

@Eris

We have different types of data for different purposes. Yes there are some lists which only "reasonably confirm" COVID. Generally we wouldnt use that for statistical analysis. Then you have other studies and list that explicitly randomly sample and test for the presence of the genome. These are the data sets we tend to use to draw mot conclusions off of.

@Oblivia

@Eris

Thats like me handing you a glass of poison and lying by saying "hey here is some water" and then when you die going "thats not my fault, thats communist logic. The only thing that killed him is the poison itself".

When you lie and people believe your lies and that results in their death, yes, you have a hand to play in that as far as I'm concerned.

@swiley

@Eris

They never assumed all respirtory illness was covid. There are preliminary number reports (which is what your thinking of), then the final numbers that come in about 3 months later that actually only include cases of covid that are reasonably confirmed.

As for VARES. you only need to look at the VARES FAQ to understand that the law states any cases of hospitalization that happen within 14 days of being vaccinated, even those that are confirmed to not be related to COVID, must by law be reported to VARES. It has been stated many times over and right there on the FAQ that the VARES deaths are **not** a listing of people who died from vaccination. it is a listing of people who died within 14 days of being given a shot for any reason.

@Oblivia

@Eris

Because its not true and is quite easy to show why. The lie about thousands of deaths comes from a misunderstanding of VARES, which does not actually list confirmed COVID deaths.

@Oblivia

@Eris

If/when someone were to lie in that way, yes.

Thankfully the risks we do know (such as 40 per million mycarditis, or the 2 cases of blood clots) are on the sheets of side effects. Despite being quite rare they dont really hide it most of the time. If someone does hide it then yes, that is wrong of them.

@Oblivia

@Eris

There are plenty of good reasons not to want to get vaccinated or to think it isnt safe enough or well tested yet. Thats not the issue. The issue is the morons who try to say its actually dangerous or killing people and spreading misinformation they clearly dont understand (like the usual lie about thousands of recorded deaths)

@Oblivia

@Oblivia

Informed conscent doesnt mean you know enough to be an oracle. It means you know the risks we do know, and the risks of the unknown. Knowing its a new drug and that that infers certain risks of the unknown is part of informed conscent, and a perfectly reasonable rason to be hesitant.

I'm not vaccinated, I have no intention of vaccinating until we have better data and the vaccines are out longer. I am not against anyone who is vaccine hesitant or doesnt want tog et vaccines. I am against the idiots spewing misinformation as a means to justify the that decision however.

@Eris

@Eris

Of course not, it is quite obvious that despite being uninformed on the topic that you arent deferring to anyone who is informed on it either.

@Oblivia

@Eris

Yup, it should be, because intent is 4/5ths of the law as they say. Commiting mass murder but not intending to, or even knowing your doing it, is perfectly legal, and im ok with that.

@Oblivia

@Oblivia

In that case you have a person defering to an expert. They dont understand the surgery or its technicals in any sense, they simply trust the risk assesment and details given to them by a professional. No different than with vaccines really, a person typically wont understand the subject, but they can defer to their doctors risk assesment and side effects and other details to make an informed decision despite not understanding the subject.

@Eris

@Eris

Yes it results in mass murder. No I am not ok with it. Not being ok with it does not mean I think it should be against the law though. The law should not reflect morality as far as I'm concerned.

@Oblivia

@Oblivia

Right, as I said I really couldnt care less if the people the meme calls out take me seriously or not. They arent really worth the effort. I prefer to debate with people who are capable of learning and changing views.

@Eris

@Eris

Agreed. I do not expect nor claim to have made any sort of argument to suggest I should be trusted here. I more than happy to just point out the stupidity and move on.

@Oblivia

@Eris

I didnt mean to suggest that spreading misinformation about vaccinations due to ignorance should or is illegal.

@swiley

@Oblivia

A person doesnt know how to do heart surgery, yet can give informed conscent to have surgery.

@Eris

@Eris

Nah, I've put in high effort responses dozens of times int he past. Some were with people it was a waste of time with. Some actually had enough knowledge and understanding for it to be worthwhile.

@Oblivia