I can only reiterate that I haven't been told of a single person thru my local contacts that had a really severe reaction to pfizer or moderna. And those are by far the most common ones here (one person I know who originally got J&J even went back later to get pfizer because it works better).

We obviously are operating from different data sources. Even the original covid rate had an average fatality rate of 1%. We don't have great numbers yet for Delta, but there are already clear signs that the risks are much higher for younger people now.

And I wouldn't get too caught up in the craziness associated with "car accidents skewing the numbers" theories that I've seen promulgated here. Just think about it: 38.6K people died from car accidents in 2020. Just statistically we can see that only a very few of them would have covid. So even assuming 10% of those who died were diagnosed as covid positive, that's not going to move the needle much even if every single one of that group was actually counted as a covid death (which I don't think is factually correct, at least for US numbers, as based on my reading of CDC reporting guidelines to hospitals at that time, a causal link showing covid was a contributing factor to classify them as a covid death: so someone who tested positive but was asymptomatic wouldn't be classified as a covid death, as a simple example).

As a side note, I also do not like to take medications and I do not take any regularly, not even the common over the counter ones that a lot of people take. I've only gone to a clinic two or three times in 10 years. But looking at the odds on covid vaccinations vs covid, I didn't hesitate too long.

Well, again it is a just different life experiences I guess. Personally I only know of the one person in my entire extended circle who got diagnosed as a covid death, thankfully.

According to this data - the average case fatality rate for COVID is currently around 2%. So that is 2% of people testing positive for COVID die. However, as the page also states, the true CFR is unknown and varies widely by region and time period:

As this paper shows, CFRs vary widely between countries, from 0.2% in Germany to 7.7% in Italy. But it says that this is not necessarily an accurate comparison of the true likelihood that someone with COVID-19 will die of it.

If we add to this the reality that people are being logged as 'covid deaths' when they were already very ill anyway with non COVID problems - the chances are that the true CFR may be much lower than these figures suggest.

It is also important to understand that these are relative figures, in the sense that they are only measuring the number of people who test positive and not the absolute figure of the population as a whole. If we were to ask how many of a population has died of COVID in an absolute sense, the percentage would be way below 1%.

So in general, the absolute risk of death from COVID is below 1%.

The risk of death from vaccination is also not entirely known. So in both cases we are dealing with unknowns - hence there is a lot of scope for debate and disagreement.

While it may well be case that the risk of death from a vaccine is slightly lower than the risk of death from the disease (which we actually have no way of proving either way at this point and possibly never will) - it is totally reasonable to understand why people would look at what may be an absolute risk of < 0.2% of death (based on the total UK mortality count (from Bing Covid map) vs overall national population) and conclude that they prefer to not become a guinea pig for new technology. After watching hundreds of videos of people shaking, paralysed and dying from the vaccines - I'll take my chance with a 99.8% survival rate from the disease.

So, the "clearly" here was referencing the theory from another post, that you just assumed everyone would have read? That's a terrible way to construct an argument. But I'll go along for the ride...

The gist of the linked post (which forms part of my post by referencing it) is the same as the gist of the data presented in the graphs in my post, which make up 50% of my post. It is reasonable to think that people will look at the graphs, since they form half of the post.

It has all the hallmarks of the amateur statistician who ends up mistaking correlation for causation

No, it has the hallmarks of someone trusting that readers are intelligent enough to discern the difference between correlation and causation. Nothing in my words, that I recall, was intended to convey the idea that the data proves the vaccines drive transmission. The idea was to demonstrate that there is legitimate cause to look more closely at what is happening, since repeatedly (regardless of the time of the year) the cases go up after vaccination begins.

vaccination rates will increase when an outbreak occurs,

In the graphs we mostly see that the outbreaks occur AFTER or during the vaccination period. That's the whole point.

You have to conduct controlled studies to do this type of analysis reliably.

It's nice to be able to do such studies, but when survival is in question and everyone is being forced to decide for themselves what is right for themselves, it is not ethical to remain silent on obvious patterns due to an absence of paid research.

The primary argument in that theory is that vaccines keep more people alive (which I suspect if I asked as a independent question, you would probably deny, but are still willing to introduce as a point of argument against vaccines)

The study in question referred to vaccines that were more traditional and not from COVID. In those cases, it is typical that the vaccines do have a beneficial effect on longevity vs. doing nothing (during exposure to disease) - I have never said that effective vaccines do nothing of benefit at all. Since we do not have long term data for COVID vaccines and there are many people dying who HAVE been vaccinated, it remains to be seen how truly effective the COVID vaccines are.

Yet that's a terrible argument against the specific case of covid vaccinations, because original covid in civilized countries only had a mortality rate of about 1% anyways. So, instead of 99 spreaders, we have 100. Yes, I can fully see the danger now, Sherlock.

The whole point of the study is to highlight the effect of leaky vaccines on lethal variants. You are essentially trying to say that 'COVID isn't so deadly', so let's not worry about increased potential for mutation and transmission - and seem to be saying at the same time that the risk from COVID is significant and warrants the strategy of mass vaccination. The study highlights that truly lethal variants can thrive where leaky vaccines have been used. If a strain of COVID were to emerge, through any particular vector, that were truly much more deadly, then the leaky vaccines would statistically result in more death. That is a key part of the paper that you seem to be overlooking with your comments here.

But lets get back to your essential complaint, which rather than my arguments against your points, appears to be my downvoting this post.

The issue I have is not with downvoting per se, or the loss of payout - but the intent behind it and the potential to limit the reach of the post as a result of the action. I understand that you disagree with the post and that is why you downvoted it, deliberately to attempt to limit it's reach.

you knowingly posted a false fact as the title for your post (with the title line being denied within your post).

No, I did not. I don't agree that the title is false - the title is accurate. You may disagree with the content of referenced paper, that's fine - but the title is accurate.

"Science Shows COVID19 Vaccines May Increase Transmission & Drive Variants."

In this case, the scientific process was used to create a study on the topic of leaky vaccines and their potential effect on transmission and potency of viruses - on birds and also implied on humans. The title says 'MAY' - meaning that the result is not certain. Therefore, the logic of the first part of the title is correct.

"Cases Often Increase After Vaccine Drives."

The graphs provided and the linked post pointing to 87 more, all show that this statement is true.

Your response is that your post is getting a lot of hits and I shouldn't censor it (and yet you then point out that you are not being effectively censored by it, so not sure where you were going with the latter point).

I used the view count to highlight that the majority of people do not think as you do on this topic. The views mostly came from people who voluntarily retweeted the post. Some may have disagreed with it, yes - however, 95%+ of comments were positive and in support of it. While a single downvote did not censor this post due to the overwhelming support it received from the community here - in principle, such as an action can and will have a reach restricting effect which is logically equivalent to censorship (it has the same result). I am highlighting a principle, which I would like you to consider.

I will continue to downvote any content that I believe doesn't deserve the associated reward and is likely to risk public health

You are stating here that you are essentially trying to limit the reach of the post because you think it is a public health risk. Reducing the payout will not protect anyone, only reducing the reach of the post will possibly protect people from the health risk you perceive - so you are clearly trying to restrict the reach - which is an attempt at censorship. You can do that, it's baked into the algorithm of Hive, I'm just wanting to be clear about what you are doing.

Shock titles do attract eyes. But they are not responsible commentary and they do not deserve high rewards simply for attracting attention.

I agree. I have no problem with discussing the details of posts and I certainly have better things to be doing that posting clickbait. I am simply highlighting that you seem to be coming from a judgemental and closed minded position, possibly acting out of fear rather than reason. It would be great to be engaged in conversation next time rather than just being downvoted. I appreciate you taking the time to have a reasonable conversation.