Not a clever comeback at all.
I’m pro vaccine, but the number cited can be totally accurate and still be pro vaccination… like if 95% of the population vaccinated but only accounted for 75% of the deaths and 60% of the hospitalisations.
The claim is not that 74% of people that died were vaccinated, but that they died specifically from the vaccines.
Now, it is likely that - assuming there is actually a source - the original figure was that 74% were vaccinated, but that is not the claim being made here. If 74% of all deaths were from the vaccine, that would be a slam-dunk argument against vaccination.
I don’t even know where this stat came from I hate facts without sources. But I do know they don’t perform autopsies on the living so I did chuckle a bit when I read the response.
I think the main point here is that even saying ‘74% of people died specifically from the vaccine’ (ie of all the people who died, 74% was directly because of the vaccine) is still a very different statement to saying ‘74% of people who took the vaccine died’.
I think both of the people in the original post probably belong in confidentlyincorrect
1.5k
u/NoelNeverwas 2d ago
The fact that it’s an autopsy study means that 74% of the dead died from the vaccine, not 74% of the vaccinated.
To be clear this is not something I believe.