Schools without mask mandate 3.5 times more likely to have COVID-19 outbreaks: CDC study

It's also been the deadliest vaccine in history, so yeah, more testing might have been a good idea. And you people want to force those needles into children who aren't even at risk. Again, this isn't about their health, it's about your hysteria.

Do you have a peer reviewed study specifically stating this? Or at least a medical institution? I mean literally saying kids don't need it.

Don't bother responding without a link.

What do you mean, it was thoroughly tested and it is highly safe and effective. This is according to nearly all trials and studies.

I don't know what you're referring to. Provide a source for the "deadliest vaccine" claim.

Wait, wasn't eoten claiming the vaccine was a placebo? Is this placebo now killing thousands of people...somehow?

@Maroxad: Yea cause NY times is not far left or at all biased lol. If you thought Crowder was bad god damn they are like the most woke news site besides the Washington Post. Hell the NY post actually supports cancel culture and the Ochs-Sulzberger family (who own the NY Post) are shady AF.

Also glad you posted that other article as well cause it doesn't prove your point at all if you read the damn thing which you didn't lol. In order for masks to work fully you need to do everything possible to lower the risks like I don't know like going by the article (and what we did for a year) was wash hands regularly, clean areas that have high "touch/spread" and switch out masks every few hours and wear other forms of PPE.

Now you're gonna ask kids and teenagers do all that throughout the school year? good luck chump. Oh and btw those mask tests were with HCW's who already work in a very clean settings compared to middle schoolers and high schoolers.

Lastly I'm glad you listed every one you don't like cause going by that list, it's not even about that if they're right or wrong, it's all about they don't follow the same ideology you do so thank you for showing your true intentions.

You only have to look at CDC's own VAERS sight. If even a tiny fraction are true, it places the Covid vaccine as having caused more deaths than any other vaccine in history. Blood clotting, heart inflammation, Guillain-Barre syndrome have already been confirmed and acknowledged. If children are not at risk with Covid, it's irresponsible, and idiotic to subject them to the risk of side effects of a vaccine they do not need.

You hit our trap card.

You're bad and you should feel bad.

Fact Check-VAERS data does not prove COVID-19 vaccine deaths exceeded 12,000 | Reuters

Viral Posts Misuse VAERS Data to Make False Claims About COVID-19 Vaccines - FactCheck.org

PolitiFact | No truth that VAERS system shows 6,000 “died because of” COVID-19 vaccines

Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination | CDC

• Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.

Disclaimer

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

• Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
• Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
• The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
• VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
• VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.

Furthermore all peer reviewed data so far shows the benefits significantly outweigh the risks.

Got any source agreeing with you directly?

He can't even keep up with his own lies. 😂😂😂😂😂

Oh and I'm not surprised he hasn't offered citation when asked multiple times in this thread, and all other science threads. His claims are so bogus. This is flat earther level stuff. Only actually harmful.

@zaryia: Fact checkers 😂😆😂

New York Times is not far left. It is incredibly corporate, while it favors the democratic party, the warmongering articles it published following the withdrawal, are anything but. Not to mention, the point was an example of MSM correcting themselves, and they do so almost daily. You were wrong in your assertion that MSM don't correct themselves, own up to it, rather than continuing your red herring string.

And if you mention that your point was specifically MSM fact checkers. Here you go, Politifact doing the same,

https://www.politifact.com/corrections-and-updates/

That paper proves my point exactly. My point is that evidence in favor of ivermectin is deeply flawed, and currently holds no value.

I linked that because the study was incredibly flawed. Yet it is the study people on the vloggers and bloggers love to use to support their data. I didnt point out the flaws, because anyone who is scientifically literate and actually READ it, would see how deeply flawed it was. Read it again,

• The paper contradicts itself
• The values on the table don't add up
• Research institutes were extremely vague. They did mention a hospital there before. The hospital then announced it had nothing to do with the paper, so they changed it to "Other peripheral Medical Center"
• One of their sources, denied ever being involved with the study.
• The only reason it even passed peer review in the first place is because it was published in an Open Access Journal not even acknowledged by the Master Journals list. With a 7 day long peer review process to boot.

In other words, that thing is fraudulent, and that paper is the best the ivermectin club can do. Which is my point, Ivermectin doesnt have a lot of credibility because the evidence for it is deeply flawed. I guess people who follow pundits and vloggers, fail to see just how deeply flawed it was. You see, unlike you I don't pick sides. I follow the evidence. which brings me to my next point...

Wait, what ideology do I follow then? Because I listed people all across the political spectrum, and I do this because I don't pick a side. The reason I dislike those guys is because they are all tribalists who picked a side and then argue ad hoc, on why their side is right.

Oh and Dim Fool is not a fence sitter xD

How do people keep falling for it?

Either way this has nothing to do with the topic. Masks have been shown to work by pretty much any credible study, and the efficacy of masks, has been flat out been demonstrated with peer review. To work.

We know the masks work because they have not only been tested individually for this disease, but we also know the mechanism through which the virus spreads in the air, that being through aerosols (think tiny droplets in layperson terms).

We also have several studies showing that masks do help protect against aerosols, but we also know by how much each mask protects us.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248099

Masks work, get over it. It is why we see the results the OP was about.

What a childish reply. You need more than smiley spam to counter my numerous and verified citation.

1. When EVERY single one fact checker who has weighed in on this says you're wrong, you're likely wrong. Can you actually refute any of those links? The fact checkers I listed are from "Highly Factual" or "Very High Factual" sources,

Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

Reuters - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

FactCheck.org - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

2. Literally the site of the people who make VAERS agrees with the above, Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination | CDC

3. And the VAERS site itself says the same thing......VAERS - Data (hhs.gov) (Disclaimer).

You have to stop shit posting here.

VAERS is user submitted and the HHS even preempts it by saying, "may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable." This is been debunked over and over already. Even more ridiculous considering you've already stated that the vaccine is a placebo but is also apparently killing thousands, which is an insane argument in it's own right.

VAERS is not used to determine a cause of death. Now repeat that 10 times and go sit in the corner.

i think for kids, in general the vaccine isn't necessary, but for those with existing illnesses, then yes its a good idea to get one. The parents though, its definitely something they should get.

Kids pass on disease easily. Covid mutates as long as it's unchecked. Everyone physically able should get the vaccine and we can get back to normal.

**** all covid mandates

@LJS9502_basic: kids don't even catch covid that easily, at least that was the case with the previous strains, and nothing to say delta is any different. If kids get it or not, it's a lower priority than adults getting it

@blaznwiipspman1: kids can catch it but over 99% of them are asymptomatic cases

@sargentd: its like 99.9% or something and that's IF they even get it in the first place.

@blaznwiipspman1: yup

False.

@LJS9502_basic: what's false?

@LJS9502_basic: Yes most of your replies are false, but thanks for the heads up.

Why did you run?

They can spread it and get disease. The higher % of a population that get vaccinated, the lower number of daily deaths.

And how about all other vaccine mandates? Guess you want some old viruses to come back too lol.

Even lower, about 99.998% survival rate for people under 18. The number is so low, anyone who suggest we mandate them into masks and injections is an idiot. Covid has killed half or less of the number of people since January 2020 as bacterial pneumonia.

Like I said before, trying to force this crap onto children isn't for their health, it's to ease the paranoia of the so-called "adults" trying to force this onto them, and that's just disgusting to harm children to make yourself feel safer.

Do you have peer reviewed citation directly stating these claims/conclusions? As in a study that shows the risks of the vaccine are higher than the benefits for children.

You seem to be making things up in a lot of Covid threads recently. I need to see the science behind these rather bold claims.

I'll consider your lack of this request your concession.

@eoten: The only hysteria is yours. Nobody cares or believes your misinformation.

I have no hysteria. I'm not the one looking under my bed every night to make sure there isn't some unvaccinated person not wearing a mask hiding under there. I'm not the one who thinks I'm going to get sick and die if I do not force the rest of society to conform to my psychotic delusions. I'm not the one trying to sacrifice the education, health, and mental health of children to ease my paranoia. I am 100% fine and comfortable with telling you and your "mandates" to go pound sand ;-).

Super, but your entire decision making process is based on false data, pseudoscience, and propaganda.

When you only do two data points you're gonna find a lot of correlation and no causality. I could do the same thing and follow a group of 10,000,000 people who are tacos for 6 months to a year. Some of those people will have died at some point after eating tacos. They does not mean tacos caused their death.

The covid vaccine has been given to far more elderly people than any other vaccine and in fact penetration % lessens as the age group gets younger. Something like 93% of people 70 and older have gotten the vaccine. This group accounts for like 85% of the average 2.75 million deaths of all causes each year. Logic (and statistics) would dictate a large number of vaccinated people from this age group(which again is almost entirely vaccinated) will die this year vaccine or no vaccine.

Fewer children having died from Covid than common bacterial pneumonia is neither false data, pseudoscience, nor propaganda. There's been about 430 deaths since January 2020, many of them with comorbidities as well. Do you dispute that number?

Provide a source for both claims.

I posted a source on another thread. You people pretended that was untrue as well. I'll post it again since you people seem to have come down with a case of selective amnesia. But, it's up to 478 since the last time I posted it. However, pneumonia is nearly 1,000, remaining at about twice reported Covid deaths. No, this isn't enough to subject children to the physical and psychological harm they're being subjected to.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku

@eoten: you were talking about more than just kids, keep up. Lastly, if kids were isolated from adults who are not so able to deal with covid infections that would be a more salient point, unfortunately not doing any sort of mitigation for kids simply leave you with a large pool of 20% of the population to circulate the disease, with nearly half the adult population suceptible. If nearly all adults were vaccinated this would be viable as you could get natural immunity in kids without risking the adults having large outbreaks. Again nuance is important here

Since this was so easy for you, why do you almost never do it all the other times we ask for it?

Would you listen to it if I did? Or will you only whine the source doesn't come from a leftwing pundit? I can post sources ad nauseum and if they don't come from NPR, nobody cares. You people live in a bubble and will not accept any kind of information that originates outside of it. You even have a hard time believing sources within your bubble that counter your preconceived notions. I posted that link before, I pointed out before, several times that Covid was not a serious risk to children, and here you people are again pretending none of that ever happened, asking for the same source, yet again.

Give it a week and there will be another thread about Covid and children, I'll make the same points, and one of you will again ask for the same source as if I didn't just give you one right now.

Here is why he almost never does it,

He uses the CDC for his numbers.

He uses arm-chair science for his interpretation of said numbers. Even though the source he is pulling from says the opposite. He was hoping no one would catch this.

For example,

Here is his central claim regarding the data he linked,

this isn't enough to subject children to the physical and psychological harm they're being subjected to.

The link he gave made no mention of any of this. The above sentence was 100% made up by him on the spot. AKA Arm-Chair science

Here is the CDC's (his source) expert and professional interpretation of that same data,

Get a COVID-19 vaccine for your child as soon as you can.

Stark contrast right?

If he means to say the CDC is wrong (while using thier own info), he requires direct citation saying Children do not really need to get vaccinated. The study or institute literally must say or strongly insinuate that. This is why I say "direct" citation whenever Eoten is posting. He literally just uses someone elses numbers then makes up his own fantasy idea about them rather than what the source actually thinks says about it.

He literally did the same with NASA and their Solar study for his climate denial.

Your source isn't saying what you're saying. You weren't able to find any verified sources agreeing with you.

In fact, the source you just used (CDC) said to vaccinate your children asap.You are incorrectly making claims based off of their factual numbers.

You did the same with NASA in climate change threads.

I never said covid was a huge risk to children, neither have I seen you post that link before. You're spending far more time on these boards than I am. What I might have said about Covid and children is that they are good at spreading it further and keeping the pandemic lasting longer given they will mostly get antibodies against it by contracting it. Which poses a risk to those few which can not for some reason get the vaccine for it. A problem magnified by all the adults who refuses to get the vaccine as well.

The solution here to limit spread among children has been creating cohorts at kindergarden and school.

Post your sources for the claims you make. If they are proper, they should easily handle all criticism we could come up with here.

Which is why I pointed out the fallacy of pretending this is about protecting children or about their own health rather than the selfishness of some scared adults. I mean, forcing children to get potentially damaging injections, telling them they're going to die if they don't do it or wear a mask just to sooth the fears of some allegedly grown ass men is disgusting.

Their parents aren't at much more of a risk of dying from Covid than they are either.

The benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks by a large margin according to all studies and trials. This fact is no longer in question.

It's important that we get as many people vaccinated as possible to contain the circulation and mutation of the virus which kills 2,000 people a day and has killed 700,000.

There is a reason the sources for the numbers you are giving us even disagree with you. There is a reason why most medical groups recommend the vaccine.

But there are virtually no benefits to the vaccine for children. So there's nothing to outweigh the risks. Again, you're going on a FEELING that isn't actually backed by the science. The evidence shows Children really aren't at much of a risk at all to Covid. You can cherry pick the trials you want that says otherwise, but the facts remain death amongst children is EXTREMELY rare, rarer than almost every other cause of death besides perhaps polar bear attacks.

Pretending it isn't is just being dishonest, and shilling for big pharma profits.

[Citation Needed] I would love to see the study that said this. I mean it actually has to say no benefit and there is no need for benefit risk analysis.

What do you mean, all the studies, virologists, and medical groups are on my side. Those are the people I'm citing. Science is with me, not you.

What science are you talking about, the same person who told you the vaccine is a placebo? Or the person who told you to link a conspiracy blog?

Nearly all Trials and studies show the vaccine is effective and outweighs the risks. Any cherry picking would be done by you, and boy would it be rare.

Do you have citation that shows children should not get the shot? It could be peer reviewed or medical institutions.

Hell do you even have one for adults, since you've mostly been talking about that for the last 9 months. You never provide the info for this.

[Citation Needed]

I told you, I don't give a **** about what your cherry picked trials say. A 99.998% survival rate isn't a good enough excuse to subject children to any of your psychotic delusions.

Also, you do not need a citation that big pharma has profited considerably over sale of the vaccine. Even Pfizer released a statement saying the vaccine raised $3.5 billion in revenue over the first quarter this year alone.

I literally don't have to cherry pick. Nearly all trials and studies on the major Covid Vaccines used in USA say the vaccine work and the benefits are greater than the risks.

Citation? I need a study or medical institution to actually say the death rate, long term symptoms, and spread/circulation from children is low enough to not require vaccinations.

Because I can link the opposite and only find the opposite.

An uncited 99.998% survival rate, even if it were true. Doesnt change the fact that a good percentage of those infected suffer from long term symptoms from COVID. Around 10%.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-study-finds-benefits-of-teen-vaccination-outweigh-risks/

This one concerns vaccines, but the principle remains the same, protecting children against the virus is the better choice here.

Even if true, the citation should be mostly for the second part of his sentence:

@eotensaid: A 99.998% survival rate isn't a good enough excuse

The bold is arm-chair science, and requires an extremely strong sources directly saying this considering the extremely contrarian nature of the claim. It's frankly a false claim. Most medical institutes and studies highly recommend the vaccine in spite of a 98-99% survival rate. And like you said, it also doesn't discuss long term symptoms and circulation.

It's an out of context number followed by a false claim.

Survival rates for COVID-19 misrepresented in posts (apnews.com)

Not surprised it is fake news. The guy was also touting a 99.8% survival rate or something like that. Even though the virus 98.5% in the US, and about 98% worldwide. Ten times deadlier than he pretends it is.

Either way, COVID has more long term symptoms than just death. Fatigue, depression, and other symptoms would probably be best avoided.

He's likely just dividing 1/500, which is how many Americans have died of it to date. And no, this is now how we determine survival rates.