ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

V***S C***D V*****e Data (V*****e A*****e E***ts Reporting System, USA)

329,021 Reports Through June 4, 2021
DEATHS 5,888
HOSPITALIZATIONS 19,597
Urgent Care 43,891
OFFICE VISITS 58,800

ANAPHYLAXIS 1,459
BELL’S PALSY 1,737
Life Threatening 5,885
Heart Attacks 2,190
Myocarditis/Pericarditis 1,087
Thrombocytopenia/Low Platelet 1,564
Miscarriages 652
Severe Allergic Reaction 15,052
Disabled 4,583

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/shocking-jump-v*****e-deaths-reported-week-cdc-linked-v***s-tracking-website/

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

Perspective:

143,119,077 fully v******ted in the USA
5888 Deaths nets .00405%
19597 Hospitalizations nets .013672%

173,391,711 shots administered in the USA
5888 Deaths nets .00334%
19597 Hospitalizations nets .01124%

Doctor Dave Loc: Madisonville, Tx.

So, the perspective becomes important when pushing the shot, but not important when considering that the percenterages actually represent peoples lives. Is that your position?

WinkyTink Loc: Hill Country, TX

I only have a personal position which should have no bearing on anyone else.

Each individual can decide what to, or not to, inject based on their personal health, their exposure to risk, and their driving ideologies. Weigh the pros and cons, make a decision, accept the consequences.

It is difficult when the government and their health institutions can't be fully trusted to report accurately.

What further convolutes the situation is posting "out of context" V***S data, be it accurate or not (historically it is under-reported while c***d data is likely hugely o**r-r****ted).

The purpose of my post is to show a rough statistical analysis (to date) to give perspective to the scary V***S numbers.

Yes, the dead/hospitalized represent people. People who, to their acquaintances and loved ones, have endured a horrific/terminal experience. Overall, the negatively impacted are statistical noise. Everyone should understand that. The v*****e may help them, it may do nothing or it may k**l them.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

I actually think you spelled this out quite well.

In the interest of full disclosure (for those who may not have read my previous posts), I am anti-c****-** v*****e experiment gene therapy for reasons too numerous to get into here. My hope is that anyone on the fence about taking the jab, do so with full knowledge of the potential consequences, only some of which are spelled out in the V***S report. In other words, view the risk/reward analysis on an experimental gene therapy where the average person has a 99.8% survival rate.

You do point out correctly that V***S historically has under reported adverse v*****e events.

"V***S is what’s called a passive surveillance system, meaning that instead of actively searching for potential side-effects, it relies entirely on voluntary reporting. V***S’ detection rate is abysmal.

A report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2010 concluded that, quote, “Fewer than one percent of v*****e a*****e e***ts are reported by the VAER System.” https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

So, factor into your risk/reward analysis that if only 1 to 10% of adverse reactions are captured by the voluntary reporting V***S system (which is seriously backlogged by the way- check out the comment by noted author Alex Berenson below), just how bad are the actual numbers of serious adverse V*****e reactions?

"A clue to how bad the V***S backlog has gotten: This person submitted a report in late January, a quarter-million reports ago. She received an automated reply asking for more information TODAY. pic.twitter.com/YFPbZAZel2
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) April 30, 2021"