>>Survey says: somewhere around 600K.
>>
>>600K vs 5k.
>>
>>Which number looks better to you?
>
>Totally agreed, and I never purported to compare the death
>numbers from COVID to vaccine. The only thing I would say in
>response is that it took over a year to reach 600K, we are at
>5K (supposedly) within 2-3 months. I also recognize that that
>is a much lower number than COVID deaths in first 3 months so
>even that was said with a grain of salt.

>>At best, you're implying that vaccines aren't 100% effective
>>in all cases.
>I didn't imply anything. Again, I asked a question to hone in
>on a number.

The question was: what would constitute large numbers. You then cited 5,000 vaccinated people who have died.

It's hard to argue that that does not definitely imply that vaccines aren't effective.

>I have no clue. I never said I trusted the CDC/VAERS data
>either. I just put it out there for sake of debate and to
>give OP a framework/reference point to answer with a number.

But your questions have implications that follow general antivaxx sentiments.

And your question is problematic, as I've explained.

Further, if you're *just* asking questions, then that's a problem, because those questions are empty and only serve to raise doubts.

There are various ways to ask questions.

"Just asking questions" is a way to make a statement while retaining plausible deniability and responsibility for the ideas one is putting forth.

Conversely, were you using the Socratic Method, you would be attempting to reveal a bias, presupposition, or flaw in someone's epistemology of some kind, which is particularly useful in a disagreeable discussion.

It does not appear that that is what you're doing, however.

So I'd need you to clarify where you're going with that line of questioning, because the question is problematic, as is.

>Another question that will probably get me fried...but what do
>you mean by shit ton of assumptions? What data do you want or
>would you consider relevant?

Because you cited 5k vaccinated dead, and then cited that this with only 10% reporting- which unarguably implies that the actual number is far greater.

And we'd have to make assumptions to get to whatever that greater number is. But we don't know what that number is, and an empty, "just asking questions" style question just puts the idea into the ether, with no real direction or attempt at answering the question.

If you're saying that we have 5k deaths with 10% reporting, some of the data we'd need would be the information I list in the next passage.

>Again, ya'll are putting a lot of extras on a simple question.
> I aint said shit for or against the vaxx in here.

Again, your question has implications, absent more clarification on your part.

>It is a FACT though that in the VAERS system there were like
>200 deaths a year, we already at 4500+ in 2021.

Cool.

>anti-COVID vaxx fact, per se, but a fact nonetheless. The
>point from another poster above about VAERS being a form is
>well-taken, and considered as well. Again, I'm not here to
>spin this as an anti vaxx thing, just trying to get a feel for
>what the limits/boundaries are here. You are free to ask me
>for mine if you would like as well...

Again, your question has strong antivaxx implications.

As I stated above, the number of deaths of vaccinated people is dramatically lower. So the dramatically lower number is preferable, and absolutely necessary for survival.

With due respect, you need to expound on your question, lay out a path with more pointed questions, or something. You need to rehabilitate your question in a big way for it to look like anything other than antivaxx sentiment.

I'm not calling you that quite yet, but your question does quack like that particular duck. Whether or not that reflects your overall ideaology is a different story and I won't put that on you until/unless further evidence solidifies that, but fam... you're on that path as far as I can tell.