Covid III: Delta Force

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

Given that masks work, it is without question that they save lives.  I think it is a legitimate question to ask what the threshold should be for mask mandates and recommendations - I think you know as well as I that it is an impossible question to answer without someone disagreeing.  How do you weigh the risks vs benefits?  We know the risks of Covid with nearly 1 million deaths in the US, countless hospitalizations, long-term disability and breathing issues, countless devastating long-Covid cases which is still poorly understood with people desperate for answers (including my wife) - even among the young and healthy.  You hint at potential costs of masks with children, but I wonder how you come to that conclusion.  What numbers and studies are you relying on?  You may be able to show an uptick in suicide rates and anxiety/depression, but how can you know how much masks specifically played a role in that - rather than isolation, at-home-school, community discontent, lost parents to Covid, economic family hardship, general divisiveness and nastiness, etc.?  How do we compare those numbers to the costs of Covid, and what is the proper threshold of community transmission for recommending masks?  Good luck answering all of that.

 

Difficult questions to answer.  And we now need to factor in the vaccine.  There is undeniable evidence that the vaccine is very effective at preventing severe illness and death.  This, in my opinion, largely negates the need for mask wearing.  Especially on the least vulnerable.   It’s a different conversation if we are talking about the pre-vaccine days.  
 

But let’s say there is no vaccine and there is no foreseeable production of one.  Do we keep doing the mask thing forever?  Or do we take the Sweden approach?

These aren’t just scientific questions. These are philosophical questions.  That’s why we are so divided over all this.  We have philosophical differences and that distorts how we look at everything.

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Rivers

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Difficult questions to answer.  And we now need to factor in the vaccine.  There is undeniable evidence that the vaccine is very effective at preventing severe illness and death.  This, in my opinion, largely negates the need for mask wearing.  Especially on the least vulnerable.   It’s a different conversation if we are talking about the pre-vaccine days.  
 

But let’s say there is no vaccine and there is no foreseeable production of one.  Do we keep doing the mask thing forever?  Or do we take the Sweden approach?

These aren’t just scientific questions. These are philosophical questions.  That’s why we are so divided over all this.  We have philosophical differences and that distorts how we look at everything.

 

We (you and I) have philosophical differences, I agree.  But longview and I are discussing basic fundamental scientific questions.

For me, mask recommendations (not mandates) are not really even a philosophical question, it is more a question of known risk vs known benefit.    What are the known risks of wearing masks (on a personal an public scale), and what are the known benefits (on a personal and public scale).  We don't have any real good data on the psychological consequences of wearing masks in children, but we do know that they are not killing people or causing any medical harm.  We have to weigh that against the consequences of not wearing masks on a personal and public scale.  We do know that lives are saved by wearing masks, that disease burden is lowered, that economic burden is decreased with mitigated spread, etc.   For me, the known benefits of wearing a simple face mask far outweighs the known risks.  I am contributing to saving lives, I am reducing burden on hospitals, I am reducing the number of long-covid victims, I am reducing economic impact of Covid, I am reducing the psychological effect of loss and disease suffering from Covid.  For me personally, there is zero harm from wearing masks other than being a slight inconvenience.   So to say that it is not recommended that I wear a mask seems entirely unreasonable. For others who have been severely psychologically impacted by masks (I bet the numbers are pretty small and mostly self-inflicted based on personal perspectives of masks and politics, etc.).  Masks themselves are hardly more harmful than wearing clothes - it is our personal perspective and reaction to masks that are harmful - usually based on faulty information. 

Quote

But let’s say there is no vaccine and there is no foreseeable production of one.  Do we keep doing the mask thing forever?  Or do we take the Sweden approach?

I think we should go off of what we do know.  There is plenty of evidence of benefit of masks.  Very little on any known direct harm.

No, we don't do the mask thing forever.  We should establish thresholds based on positivity rates.  Deciding that threshold is not something I would want to be responsible for!  Mandates above 25-30% positivity rates maybe.  Recommendations above 5% positivity rates seems reasonable.  For others, there is no threshold that would seem reasonable to them.  Again, this is a recommendation only - not a mandate.  It is not a violation of personal liberty.  There is nothing wrong with making a recommendation based on uncontrolled disease outbreak in a community above 5%

I understand pushback against mandates with personal liberty.  That is indeed a philosophical question and a question of values/morals with no easy answers. But mask recommendations seems much simpler to me.

Edited February 16, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

The vast majority of news reports including those of the dominant media indicate mostly mild symptoms with the omicron infections.  It is time to dispense with the hysteria.

New cases and number of deaths are skyhigh in much of the US. Now is the time to stop all mitigation efforts?

I would be more sympathetic if people who continuously demand that all mitigation efforts cease would stop pretending that current conditions (no matter what they are or if they are positive or negative) justify the change. It gets very absurd. 

It would be more honest to just say you always want them to end no matter what current conditions are.

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We (you and I) have philosophical differences, I agree.  But longview and I are discussing basic fundamental scientific questions.

For me, mask recommendations (not mandates) are not really even a philosophical question, it is more a question of risk vs benefit.    What are the known risks of wearing masks (on a personal an public scale), and what are the known benefits (on a personal and public scale).  We don't have any real good data on the psychological consequences of wearing masks in children, but we do know that they are not killing people or causing any medical harm.  We have to weigh that against the consequences of not wearing masks on a personal and public scale.  We do know that lives are saved by wearing masks, that disease burden is lowered, that economic burden is decreased with mitigated spread, etc.   For me, the known benefits of wearing a simple face mask far outweighs the known risks.  I am contributing to saving lives, I am reducing burden on hospitals, I am reducing the number of long-covid victims, I am reducing economic impact of Covid, I am reducing the psychological effect of loss and disease suffering from Covid.  For me personally, there is zero harm from wearing masks other than being a slight inconvenience.   So to say that it is not recommended that I wear a mask seems entirely unreasonable. For others who have been severely psychologically impacted by masks (I bet the numbers are pretty small and mostly self-inflicted based on personal perspectives of masks and politics, etc.).  Masks themselves are hardly more harmful than wearing clothes - it is our personal perspective and reaction to masks that are harmful - usually based on faulty information. 

I think we should go off of what we do know.  There is plenty of evidence of benefit of masks.  Very little on any known direct harm.

No, we don't do the mask thing forever.  We should establish thresholds based on positivity rates.  Deciding that threshold is not something I would want to be responsible for!  Mandates above 25-30% positivity rates maybe.  Recommendations above 5% positivity rates seems reasonable.  For others, there is no threshold that would seem reasonable to them.  Again, this is a recommendation only - not a mandate.  It is not a violation of personal liberty.  There is nothing wrong with making a recommendation based on uncontrolled disease outbreak in a community above 5%

I understand pushback against mandates with personal liberty.  That is indeed a philosophical question and a question of value/morals with no easy answers. But mask recommendations seems much simpler to me.

So you if you’re talking about recommendations as opposed to mandates, than we’re agreed.
 

 I’m no expert at looking at the studies on masks.  But I’ve been really impressed with Dr. Vinay Prassad’s analysis on these issues.  There’s a lot of nuance that he sorts through.
 

 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Rivers said:

So you if you’re talking about recommendations as opposed to mandates, than we’re agreed.
 

 I’m no expert at looking at the studies on masks.  But I’ve been really impressed with Dr. Vinay Prassad’s analysis on these issues.  There’s a lot of nuance that he sorts through.
 

 

With the current state of affairs in Utah, with case counts and positivity rates dropping rapidly and are expected to continue to drop, I agree that mandates are not necessary right now in Utah.  2 weeks ago I would have said otherwise.  That is an issue we will probably never see eye to eye on.  I think temporary mandates based on certain thresholds and risks have their place but should be a last resort.  That is an issue of values/morals in relation to personal liberty and public health/life.  But I am happy to see that we both agree that masks should be recommended, at least.  If we could all understand that the benefits outweigh the risks, there would be no need for mandates because we would all willingly wear them for the public good until certain thresholds are met.  

Edited February 16, 2022 by pogi

[longview]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

New cases and number of deaths are skyhigh in much of the US. Now is the time to stop all mitigation efforts?

. . . skyhigh . . . much of . . . ?  Why do you keep hyperventilating and stoking hysteria?  . . . all . . . ?  Why are you using absolutes?  Ridiculing me by building straw-men?

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It gets very absurd.

Especially since children have very high immunity against covid.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It would be more honest to just say you always want them to end no matter what current conditions are.

Being disingenuous?  More absolutes?  Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts.  You are really pouring on the propaganda.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

. . . skyhigh . . . much of . . . ?  Why do you keep hyperventilating and stoking hysteria?  . . . all . . . ?  Why are you using absolutes?  Ridiculing me by building straw-men?

"skyhigh" and "much of" are in no way absolutes. And I am the one hyperventilating?

2 hours ago, longview said:

Especially since children have very high immunity against covid.

No, they don't have "high immunity". They generally have fewer symptoms and are more likely to be asymptomatic. They can also spread it.

 

2 hours ago, longview said:

Being disingenuous?  More absolutes?  Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts.  You are really pouring on the propaganda.

Yes, I am clearly very hysterical. You should probably slap me before I begin having fits or keel over in a faint.

[MiserereNobis]

New Mexico just lifted its indoor mask mandate earlier this afternoon. Our school district just announced now that starting tomorrow masks are no longer required. I've been double vaxxed, boosted, and infected (3 weeks ago), so I figure I'm at peak immunity -- I'm going to forego the mask. It'll be nice not having my beard get into my mouth when I'm teaching, yes!

It'll be interesting seeing my students' faces. It seems like high schoolers look particularly different with and without a mask. The mask does a good job of hiding braces, peach fuzz beards, and acne, ha.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

New Mexico just lifted its indoor mask mandate earlier this afternoon. Our school district just announced now that starting tomorrow masks are no longer required. I've been double vaxxed, boosted, and infected (3 weeks ago), so I figure I'm at peak immunity -- I'm going to forego the mask. It'll be nice not having my beard get into my mouth when I'm teaching, yes!

It'll be interesting seeing my students' faces. It seems like high schoolers look particularly different with and without a mask. The mask does a good job of hiding braces, peach fuzz beards, and acne, ha.

I like masks that mask stuff on myself, lol.

[T-Shirt]

Our Governor just announced that mask mandates will end on March 21st.  I am not sure what is magical about that date and why he didn't just lift them now, but I am glad he is doing it.  Washington is a very blue State and our governor is quite far to the left.  Frankly, I think he pushed it out a month because it will give him time to change his mind if he thinks things are getting worse.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

New Mexico just lifted its indoor mask mandate earlier this afternoon.

We just received word that all indoor capacity restrictions here will be lifted this weekend. I've already shared with our stake president. I'm looking forward to seeing all the pews back in use in our chapel this Sunday! (For two years, half of the cushions have been stacked in the clerk's office.)

Electronically checking-in to most venues (including places of worship) was removed earlier this month. (I love that it's still required at pubs, brothels, and strip clubs!)

We still have an indoor mask mandate, but we were told today to expect changes of some kind to be made in that space next week. I'm deeply grateful that vaccines, very high uptake of vaccines, and other public health measures have worked together to get us to this point.

Our local rates of confirmed cases, hospitalisation, and intubation have been on a plateau for weeks now, with a slight downward movement in the first of those. Deaths are trending downwards as well but stubbornly refuse to reach zero. (We had one this week: a person in his 20s.)

I've compared the data, and what we are experiencing is still far more serious than an acutely high influenza season, but this appears to be the 'tolerable' equilibrium we have been aiming for.

It will be interesting to see how members react if the mask mandate lifts next week. My prediction: those who are at church in person will ditch their masks almost universally whilst those who are still sheltering at home will feel even less inclined to return for at least some time.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

New Mexico just lifted its indoor mask mandate earlier this afternoon. Our school district just announced now that starting tomorrow masks are no longer required. I've been double vaxxed, boosted, and infected (3 weeks ago), so I figure I'm at peak immunity -- I'm going to forego the mask. It'll be nice not having my beard get into my mouth when I'm teaching, yes!

It'll be interesting seeing my students' faces. It seems like high schoolers look particularly different with and without a mask. The mask does a good job of hiding braces, peach fuzz beards, and acne, ha.

Well, I'd say 90% of staff/students are still wearing masks. I'm actually quite surprised. Maybe the kids do like hiding their faces.

[bsjkki]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, I'd say 90% of staff/students are still wearing masks. I'm actually quite surprised. Maybe the kids do like hiding their faces.

It’s sad.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It’s sad.

To be fair some of the kids are probably ugly.

[bsjkki]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair some of the kids are probably ugly.

They did do a study showing people were more attractive with masks on. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/13/face-masks-make-people-look-more-attractive-study-finds
 

[blarsen]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:20 AM, bsjkki said:

They did do a study showing people were more attractive with masks on. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/13/face-masks-make-people-look-more-attractive-study-finds
 

This suggests maybe using a hood with perhaps leaving one opening for the right eye would be the best.  We'd really be able to fill in the missing portions then with incredible brain-derived pulchritude.

But people seems to lose sight of what a mask is usually used for, namely:  to hide one's identity; to hide ones' expressions from which other people derive meaning; to give oneself a different identity, etc., etc.   All of these things partake of what you might call deception, and decidedly drop the communicative content between those wearing them or transmitted from a single mask wearer.  And for those using them for COVID protection, they exude a distinct aroma of fear as pertains to the wearer.

I'll stick to not wearing a mask, thank you very much, taking my cue from studies and experts saying the usual cloth mask is quite ineffective in stopping ~100  nm diam. viruses from populating one's outgoing breath in aerosol mode.  These experts include two individuals using OSHA protocols (one worked for OASHA, one was in the Air Force) to advise people on what masks to wear and for what purpose.

And I'll have to say, I'm deeply grateful I Iearned very early on about the efficacy of sequenced multi-drug therapies in the treatment of COVID-19, especially in the early treatment of the disease or in a prophylaxis manner.  I've seen multiple examples of these being effectively used to stop COVID-19 or its symptoms dead in the track, both in my immediate and extended family, and among those I know or know about.

The result of this is that for me and mine we have been able to avoid the extreme paranoia surrounding the COVID-19 scenario.  What worries me, are the astonishing adverse events resulting from the shots. There is mounting evidence for this, to include the VAERS data, with two tragic examples in my wife's family.  Eric Clapton is not alone.

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by blarsen

[blarsen]

 

Here's a recent study showing the relative ineffectiveness of lockdowns in amelioating the effects of COVID-19 for any readers interested:     A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY; by Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke; Studies in Applied Economics, SAE/No.200/January 2022; Johns Hopkins Institute for Appied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.  At:  https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf   You can download it as a pdf.

The last paragraph of the abstract reads:  "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.  In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument".

And you could throw masking mandates into this mix, as well.  But the lockdowns have caused immense economic and personal hardship and loss to the world populations that have and are enforcing them.  They are seguing into tyrannical power grabs in several countries, particularly in Canada, Australia and Austria.  This is what people should be upset about, along w/the horrible effects in a growing number of people resulting from the experimental COVID shots . . . . along with the imposition of Vaccine Passports, used to prevent those lacking them from doing any number of things including travel.

Edited February 21, 2022 by blarsen

[Calm]

If lockdowns (which I am defining as some sort of restriction on travel, whether local or national) are inherently ineffective, could you explain why Singapore has had a total of 941 deaths and New Zealand 53?

Edited February 21, 2022 by Calm

[bsjkki]

Long article. Very informative. We need the numbers. 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by bsjkki

[blarsen]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If lockdowns (which I am defining as some sort of restriction on travel, whether local or national) are inherently ineffective, could you explain why Singapore has had a total of 941 deaths and New Zealand 53?

I'm in a different camp than you.  My last two posts are an indication of where I'm coming from, having spent the last 2 years+ intensely studying and analyzing as much data as I can get my hands on, and having had direct experience with what I'm talking about.  Getting into arguments about statistics can be endless, especially when they deal with issues such as the very questionable methods used to determine incidents of covid and covid deaths in the first place, even given that the death/incident statistics may reflect reality to some degree.

The thing that I've never been able to wrap my mind around, is the almost universal deprecation and suppression of alternative COVID therapies by 'authoritative' sources.  This makes no logical sense to me, whatsoever.  Especially when these alternative therapies are essentially non-invasive and safe, and in some cases, already employ proven drugs, though in an 'off-label' usage.

My posts on this topic are more testimonial than anything.  I've already spent countless hours in discussions with people, directly or on other boards about these things, and seldom is there any real discussion or pick-up or any serious consideration of alternative views by those who subscribe to the official COVID narrative.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, blarsen said:

I'm in a different camp than you.  My last two posts are an indication of where I'm coming from, having spent the last 2 years+ intensely studying and analyzing as much data as I can get my hands on, and having had direct experience with what I'm talking about.  Getting into arguments about statistics can be endless, especially when they deal with issues such as the very questionable methods used to determine incidents of covid and covid deaths in the first place, even given that the death/incident statistics may reflect reality to some degree.

The thing that I've never been able to wrap my mind around, is the almost universal deprecation and suppression of alternative COVID therapies by 'authoritative' sources.  This makes no logical sense to me, whatsoever.  Especially when these alternative therapies are essentially non-invasive and safe, and in some cases, already employ proven drugs, though in an 'off-label' usage.

My posts on this topic are more testimonial than anything.  I've already spent countless hours in discussions with people, directly or on other boards about these things, and seldom is there any real discussion or pick-up or any serious consideration of alternative views by those who subscribe to the official COVID narrative.

My question was serious and not rhetorical.  Can you explain, given your extensive research, why Singapore and New Zealand had so few deaths per capita?  
 

My brother lives in Singapore, so I have been interested in what is happening there.  The family was extremely anxious about his and his family’s safety when Covid first hit the news…some thought they should come back immediately.
 

I am not pro lockdowns btw…

Edited February 21, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, blarsen said:

I'm in a different camp than you.  My last two posts are an indication of where I'm coming from, having spent the last 2 years+ intensely studying and analyzing as much data as I can get my hands on, and having had direct experience with what I'm talking about.  Getting into arguments about statistics can be endless, especially when they deal with issues such as the very questionable methods used to determine incidents of covid and covid deaths in the first place, even given that the death/incident statistics may reflect reality to some degree.

The thing that I've never been able to wrap my mind around, is the almost universal deprecation and suppression of alternative COVID therapies by 'authoritative' sources.  This makes no logical sense to me, whatsoever.  Especially when these alternative therapies are essentially non-invasive and safe, and in some cases, already employ proven drugs, though in an 'off-label' usage.

My posts on this topic are more testimonial than anything.  I've already spent countless hours in discussions with people, directly or on other boards about these things, and seldom is there any real discussion or pick-up or any serious consideration of alternative views by those who subscribe to the official COVID narrative.

You are asking why public health agencies would tell people to seek real medical care instead of relying on potentially harmful placebos?

[bsjkki]

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, blarsen said:

 

Here's a recent study showing the relative ineffectiveness of lockdowns in amelioating the effects of COVID-19 for any readers interested:     A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY; by Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke; Studies in Applied Economics, SAE/No.200/January 2022; Johns Hopkins Institute for Appied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise.  At:  https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf   You can download it as a pdf.

The last paragraph of the abstract reads:  "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted.  In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument".

And you could throw masking mandates into this mix, as well.  But the lockdowns have caused immense economic and personal hardship and loss to the world populations that have and are enforcing them.  They are seguing into tyrannical power grabs in several countries, particularly in Canada, Australia and Austria.  This is what people should be upset about, along w/the horrible effects in a growing number of people resulting from the experimental COVID shots . . . . along with the imposition of Vaccine Passports, used to prevent those lacking them from doing any number of things including travel.

Of course it is all garbage. Funny that you neglected to mention that it is a pre-print study and has not gone through peer-review. I doubt it will survive the process. I am not even sure they will try.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-preprint-looking-at-the-impact-of-lockdowns-as-posted-on-the-john-hopkins-krieger-school-of-arts-and-sciences-website/

A lockdown in the study is defined as any form of government restriction. By that weird standard most nations in the world have been in perpetual lockdown since the pandemic started.

Quote

 

“In this case, a trio of economists have undertaken a meta-analysis of many previous studies. So far so good. But they systematically excluded from consideration any study based on the science of disease transmission, meaning that the only studies looked at in the analysis are studies using the methods of economics. These do not include key facts about disease transmission such as: later lockdowns are less effective than earlier lockdowns, because many people are already infected; lockdowns do not immediately save lives, because there’s a lag from infection to death, so to see the effect of lockdowns on Covid deaths we need to wait about two or three weeks. (This was all known in March 2020 – we discussed it in a paper released that month, and later published in Nature. Our paper is excluded from consideration in this meta-analysis.)

“It’s as if we wanted to know whether smoking causes cancer and so we asked a bunch of new smokers: did you have cancer the day before you started smoking? And what about the day after? If we did this, obviously we’d incorrectly conclude smoking is unrelated to cancer, but we’d be ignoring basic science. The science of diseases and their causes is complex, and it has a lot of surprises for us, but there are appropriate methods to study it, and inappropriate methods. This study intentionally excludes all studies rooted in epidemiology–the science of disease.”

 

Are you angry at whoever pointed this study out that they lied to you? Or just annoyed that your propaganda is propaganda and are going to run to the same sources to get more?

[blarsen]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

My question was serious and not rhetorical.  Can you explain, given your extensive research, why Singapore and New Zealand had so few deaths per capita?  
 

My brother lives in Singapore, so I have been interested in what is happening there.  The family was extremely anxious about his and his family’s safety when Covid first hit the news…some thought they should come back immediately.
 

I am not pro lockdowns btw…

As I mentioned, from my studied point of view, 'official' statistics leave a lot to be desired in terms of not knowing exactly how valid their determination of COVID cases or deaths are, or how pristine the motives are of the organizations that come up with them.

If it were my brother and his family living in Singapore, I would be very eager to acquaint them with the efficacy of alternative therapies for COVID-19.  I would also try to talk him out of taking the mRNA COVID shots, if at all possible,

Of course you won't do this, if you haven't given a serious open minded study of this issue and come to the conclusion these therapies are extremely valuable for COVID-19.

I personally try to use the multiple hypotheses approach when I survey controversial issues.  I highly recommend this approach.  The official COVID-19 story, to include the narrative of the efficacy of the COVID mRNA shots is an extremely powerful one.  Very tough to resist, with world-wide pressure being brought to bear in pushing it everywhere.  Some countries are resorting to outright tyrannical methods in doing so.

Again, what should worry you is the mounting evidence that these shots are not as a benign as we have been led to believe.  Death rates have been skyrocketing in the past year as evidenced by many insurance company payouts for deaths going up radically; body counts for many, many funeral homes are going through the roof with concomitant increase in their overall share values; not to mention leaked information from the military of high death rates of military personnel who have taken the shots, or the information coming out about the fraudulent trial tests for the vaccines, particularly Moderna.  And of course, there is the VAERS data base supporting this idea.

Moderna stock has plummet 70% in the past few days  due this type of information surfacing.  Pfizer is down 19%.  To get an overview of this situation, you may want to watch an interview of Edward Dowd, who has been an advisor for Blackrock and a general market player and 'futurist', in terms of predicting stockmarket trends and values.  The interview of Dowd is at:  https://futurenews.news/watch?id=620eac26dac6860c0a32d2ae

The interviewer is Alex Jones, which will probably put you off because of AJ's negative press.  But this gets us back to necessity of trying to lay your prejudices aside and using multiple hypotheses when surveying any data, especially controversial data.