A couple of questions

One of my connections posted a plea for masks and vaccines in response to a recent increase of hospitalizations. As an engineer, I rely on data when I can, so I politely asked for the studies used to support her recommendations, including an assessment of adverse effects of those recommendations to allow for informed decisions. I have not received a reply, the following exceeds the character limitations for comments, and this may warrant a wider audience in any case. Given the general unwillingness to engage in reasoned, thoughtful, and respectful debate, this may be a mistake, but here goes:

The CDC claims over 600,000 deaths “involving” COVID-19, which includes the “presumption” of COVID. In addition to including, for example, “gunshot co-morbidity” from at least three states, that number is based on RT-PCR testing, which does not differentiate COVID from the flu, and which the CDC is discontinuing. This explains, for example, why Washington State claims, for “the first time in recorded history,” zero flu deaths last year. We know, then, that the number of deaths is overstated to at least some degree.

The CDC also claims nearly 40 million COVID cases, again including the “presumption” of COVID. Given that presumption, the existence of asymptomatic cases, and the lack of a discerning test, estimating a mortality rate is largely meaningless, as we know the numerator is larger than in reality, and the denominator is likely smaller, but it is no more than about 1.5%, with that number differing significantly for different age groups and pre-existing health factors.

The OpenVAERS website currently reports nearly 14,000 deaths and 56,000 hospitalizations as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations. As with the CDC data, some care must be taken with this data in establishing causality, but also in recognizing that, historically, VAERS has been shown to represent as little as 1% to 10% of actual adverse reactions.

We have all probably heard the vaccines are “safe and effective.” “Safe” clearly doesn’t mean safe as in, for example, seatbelt usage, because putting on your seatbelt does not include the risk of injury, hospitalization, or death, while the use of the vaccine does. “Effective” is similarly a matter of opinion as opposed to fact, as the vaccines do not prevent contracting or spreading the disease, but simply may, or may not, reduce that risk and the risk of severe symptoms for the individual recipient. The need for one or more booster shots is also being discussed, suggesting the limited effectiveness is of limited duration as well. Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest vaccination may actually increase the risk from the Delta variant, which would put “effective” in an entirely different context.

COVID-19 is not the only risk to health and well-being, and every action taken against it potentially has risk and consequence. For example, isolation, suicide, loss of employment, delayed or prevented access to timely healthcare, and the like are all directly attributable to mandates and lockdowns, and yet are not commonly compared against the COVID risks.

The decision to become vaccinated should be up to the informed individual. Those exhorting others to become vaccinated should include risks along with benefits. To fail to do so is irresponsible at best. It is especially concerning when those in the healthcare profession fail to provide the risk information, apparently ignoring that primary maxim of do no harm.

All of this leads to a number of questions, one of which is how many adverse-reaction injuries, hospitalizations, and deaths are acceptable in the attempt to achieve some unquantified and limited COVID risk reduction? A second question should be, are you, personally, willing to take that risk, or bear responsibility for inducing someone else, especially through coercion such as threatened loss of employment, to take that risk?