Tucker Carlson’s Faulty Complaint about Coronavirus Vaccines

"The cable-news host has misinterpreted data to support a dangerous strain of vaccine skepticism." - National Review

1114 reads

There are 9 Comments

Don Johnson's picture

Tucker Carlson overstates risk of dying from anti-covid vaccines | Power Line (powerlineblog.com)

Bottom line, even if Carlson is correct about the number of deaths and they are directly connected to the vaccine, the number is negligible. The article points out that there is a certain death rate expected in the USA population every day, if you used that rate applied to the number of vaccinated people, the death rate from vaccination is FAR smaller.

Read the powerline piece, they explain it better than I just did!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

AndyE's picture

There are times when Tucker Carlson can be spot on, but he really loses credibility with segments like this one.  You simply cannot use VAERS data to draw any sort of conclusion at all -- that data is used by the CDC to do further investigation and only then, when the actually cases are examined, can any conclusion be drawn. So far, from what I can tell, no deaths at all have been contributed to the vaccine. To spread fear and suspicion about the vaccines from this data is either complete incompetence or intentional deception. Either way, it casts Tucker in very bad light.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

AndyE wrote:

So far, from what I can tell, no deaths at all have been contributed to the vaccine.

Of course no deaths will be directly attributed to the vaccine.  Governments can't afford that to happen, so it won't.  There will always be one complicating factor or another that will take the blame.

As Don pointed out, though, even if there are a few, it's statistically insignificant given the number of people that have been vaccinated.

That said, I agree with your larger point about about spreading fear and suspicion based on the VAERS data, and how bad it makes Tucker look.

Dave Barnhart

Mark_Smith's picture

You always need to evaluate vaccines versus the disease it prevents. A few facts to consider.

1) Short of the people around at the consummation of this world (rapture, millennium believers, etc.) living is 100% fatal.

2) Even for millennials and youth, there are some people dying of COVID. The rate of dying from natural COVID is much higher than any vaccine "death rate." 

3) As others have stated, given that tens of millions of people are getting vaccinated, someone is going to die during the vaccine period. That's all the VAERS data shows on its own.

 

Bert Perry's picture

VAERS is countered by another government program that makes generous payments to those who die after getting vaccines.  So on one side, you've got a government program that is making a lot of payments, and on the other side, you've got guys arguing that those deaths really weren't from the vaccines.

A man can be forgiven if he gets confused seeing that, I think.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

AndyE's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

VAERS is countered by another government program that makes generous payments to those who die after getting vaccines.  So on one side, you've got a government program that is making a lot of payments, and on the other side, you've got guys arguing that those deaths really weren't from the vaccines.

A man can be forgiven if he gets confused seeing that, I think.

  I'm definitely confused. What are you talking about here?  The VAERS database was set up and used by the CDC as an early warning detection system in case something does go south with vaccines. They are the ones that receive and evaluate what gets reported.  There is a government entity that has paid "lots of payments" for people who have died from the Covid vaccine????  If so, I think they are getting duped.

Bert Perry's picture

Andy, it's NVIC.  So yes, we've got no fault compensation combined with a medical group in VAERS trying to figure out which cases really are related to the vaccines.  So you've got three different stories; initial reports to VAERS, NVIC awards, and confirmed reports to VAERS.  It's widely suspected that the third category's numbers are reduced due to an institutional desire to reduce bad news.  Nobody gets their PhD/big promotion/tenure, after all, by retaining the null hypothesis or saying you can't take a product to market.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

AndyE's picture

I could not find an example at the NVIC site of compensation for a Covid-vaccine death.  It certainly seems like NVIC claims get evaluated as well.  I don't really see these two as at cross purposes.

Also, I am less skeptical than your and Dave regarding the CDC's willingness to confirm issues reported to the VAERS database. The CDC is independent from the pharmaceutical vaccine developers. Just look at what happened with the J&J vaccine -- it got paused as adverse side effect data was evaluated.  I might not have paused it myself, but it does seem to show a carefulness, even in an extremely political environment, to investigate and respond accordingly.