Thread by @luigi_warren

1/ Looking at FOHM's excellent data set, C19 mortality in Swede, which had a major primary urban epidemic and where the virus has been given almost free rein for a year, is about 1/15000, compared ... @RolandBaker @ElonBachman @Undergroundsar3 @KevinMcH3 @naomirwolf @NassMeryl

https://twitter.com/JeremyMHarris/status/1373755454199717889

2/ compared to this 1/30,000 number for one, newly-discovered fatal side effect of the AZ vaccine recorded in Norway -- apparently being seen primarily in young people, though the article we're discussing doesn't give full details. But the true comparison is not with 1/15000 ...

3/ First, C19 topline mortality is highly misleading because many deaths being put in that bucket are linked either purely coincidentally, C19 being an extremely common, generally mild nosocomial infection now, or have multiple causes and are occurring in people who are ...

4/ already at death's door. What multiplier should we put into the C19 odds to allow for that? There is no perfect answer but Sweden's topline C19 mortality for 2020 was about 3X their excess mortality (see @HaroldofWorld for stats), so lets say 3X. We are now at 1/45000 ...

5/ But, even more importantly, the epidemic is on the decline in most countries and we can expect it to subside to almost nothing going into the summer. So, we need to adjust the odds to allow for the fact that C19 is mostly done for now. ...

6/ True, it will come back in the fall, as the disease is expected to become endemic & enter the background of seasonal respiratory infections. But, vaccine hesitancy is just that, hesitancy -- waiting for facts, instead of trusting highly politicized "Warp Speed" propaganda. ...

7/ Very likely, the next resurgence will be much milder than the current one as we've already been through the annual peak R0, so perhaps comparable to the rather trivial incidence we see in Asian countries, perhaps even less than that due to C19-specific immunity. ...

8/ Regardless, we will also have much more information about the efficacy & risks of the C19 vaccines in the fall than we do now. And, the T cell test kits just coming on line will be routine and cheap by then, so it will be easier for individuals to tell whether or not they ...

9/ are "COVID virgins" who might benefit from taking a vaccine. How should we adjust the odds ratio to allow for the fact that we are entering the low season? Simply eyeballing the Swedish charts and stats (which are fairly typical for Europe) suggests that C19 mortality to ...

10/ date is going be about 10X the mortality to come before the summer lull. So, that 1/45000 becomes 1/450000. On that basis, the odds of a person <60 dying from this one, newly-identified AZ side effect (and it's still early days to catalog these side effects) are about 15X ...

11/ worse than they are of succumbing to C19 in the next six to eight months. The picture is much worse for front line medical workers, because that 90% done estimate is going to be highly conservative for them, as C19 is a heavily nosocomial infection and saturation will be ...

12/ correspondingly more advanced in this cohort. So, for them, the dangers of the vaccine, even from just this one fatal side effect that wasn't supposed to happen -- and which the Brits are still denying -- may outweigh their risk from COVID by 50X or 100X.

13/ The reason for the oft-reported hesitancy about C19 vaccines by frontline workers is that many know that (a) COVID is not the bogeyman it's been made out to be by highly politicized, mendacious public messaging/propaganda campaigns and (b) vaccines, especially rushed ...

14/ vaccines, are not as safe as the public messaging makes them out to be & have in fact been associated with significant tragedies in the past, which drug companies & government "experts" have historically done their level best to minimize and cover up.
smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lon…

(Addendum: That's mortality for <60s, not total mortality or mortality for <50s.)