How many pilots are actually crashing their planes after a heart attack?

[Anonymous No.14688205]

There seem to be a rise in myocarditis, so I was wondering if thousands of people are dying thanks to triple boosted pilots.

[Anonymous No.14688215]

>>14688205
Official statistics so far say the risk of myocarditis for each shot is 1:5000
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/canadian-chief-medical-officer-of-ontario-says-myocarditis-chance-from-vaccine-is-somewhere-in-between-the-chance-of-winning-50-and-300-in-toto.6779461/

In Germany their CDC said the rate of serious adverse effects so far is 1:5000 (notice it's much higher than the previous official statistics).
https://twitter.com/BMG_Bund/status/1549688073478455297

This is also for each shot

How many pilots are triple shot? That would be a 3/5000 chance of them having to let the copilot take over

[Anonymous No.14688221]

>>14688205
>so I was wondering if thousands of people are dying thanks to triple boosted pilots.
You can be relieved, most cases of myocarditis occur after an infection, not after the vaccine. And the few that do occur after the vaccine do so in the days after the jab, not randomly a year later. Myocarditis is mostly without symptoms, but heavy stress like workout or sports can be dangerous if you have an otherwise symptomless myocarditis. Did your parents ever tell you to not do sports for 2 weeks after a cold? That's exactly why.
So, vaccine? No problem, as sensible people got vaccinated a year ago already. Covid complications? I'd say the risk is also super low. A pilot isn't running around or lifting heavy things. Notice how athletes with Covid myocarditis collapse on the field, not while making pancakes? And the very low probability is then squared by having a copilot. So the one in a million chance becomes a one in a trillion chance that both pilots have a simultaneous heart attack.

[Anonymous No.14688224]

>>14688215
>notice it's much higher than the previous official statistics
The 1:5000 number is from April 2021. how much earlier are we talking here?

[Anonymous No.14688235]

>>14688215
By the way, your BMG link 404s. Did you mean this one?
https://twitter.com/bmg_bund/status/1550077552722644992
>0,2 Verdachtsmeldungen pro 1.000 Impfdosen beträgt die Melderate ans @PEI_Germany für schwerwiegende Reaktionen. Sollten Sie den Verdacht auf #Nebenwirkungen haben, holen Sie sich ärztliche Hilfe und melden Sie Ihre Symptome
"Verdachtsmeldung" is basically VAERS: Self-reported and not corrected for what would be expected. If you vaccinate people or not, a week later a certain percentage of them will be dead or in hospital, that's just life. The number here is not the difference of what's expected to what's observed, but only the observed effects.

[Anonymous No.14688286]

>>14688221
>most cases of myocarditis occur after an infection
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219/htm

[Anonymous No.14688298]

>>14688224
>The 1:5000 number is from April 2021.
Pretty sure it isn't, the Canadian figure is from this month
https://twitter.com/Roman_Baber/status/1547279824648953856

Official CDC statistics in July 2021 said 40 cases per million, evidently much lower than 1:5000 (5 times lower in fact)
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm

This number would justify stopping vaccinations going by past standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix

[Anonymous No.14688301]

>>14688224
From 2 months ago, CDC still uses a rate lower than 1:10000, though admittedly it indeed is getting higher
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-cdc-says-covid-vaccine-related-myocarditis-much-lower-children-than-teens-2022-05-19/

I mention the CDC because it has been the official beacon of official science in MSM so far

[Anonymous No.14688302]

>>14688298
>the Canadian figure is
Who gives a fuck what the Canadian figure is? The Germans released this number on April 9, 2021. Therefore I question your statement that it's "higher than previous statements". Can you elaborate that, or are you trying to muddy the waters with numbers from other continents and other years and other vaccines now that your lie was caught? Oh and by adding more lies on top of your lies so that you don't have to admit your previous lies.

[Anonymous No.14688306]

>>14688235
>not corrected for what would be expected
If you "adjust" the numbers and reports to fit "the expected" you obviously will remove any early signal of an anomaly won't you?

[Anonymous No.14688308]

>>14688301
The CDC is not Germany and 2 months ago wasn't prior to April 2021, when the Germans released the numbers. Neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.14688312]

>>14688302
>Germans released this number on April 9, 2021.
What do you mean? Post says July 21 2022
https://twitter.com/bmg_bund/status/1550077552722644992

The 404 link was archived by the way
https://archive.md/0oQp2

[Anonymous No.14688313]

>>14688306
No, I meant expected in the case no one was vaccinated. Basically, a statistical placebo effect (since you don't have a controlled study). It I give a million people a skittle, a certain percentage of them will fall down some stairs. The number of people who fell down stairs after they got the skittle is what is listed here. What's not listed is how many would have fallen without my skittle.
If the number is significantly higher with my skittle, then you could say that my skittle is dangerous. But "x % fell down stairs a week after eating Anon's skittle" doesn't allow such a deduction. And that's exactly what some people here are trying to do.

[Anonymous No.14688318]

>>14688308
>The CDC is not Germany
So the official capital of the deacons of science moved to Germany? I did notice many "experts" (the media heads) criticizing CDC and the FDA for "bad science".

[Anonymous No.14688326]

>>14688312
>What do you mean? Post says July 21 2022
And they report numbers from April 09 2021:
https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/sicherheitsberichte/sicherheitsbericht-27-12-bis-02-04-21.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4

>The 404 link was archived by the way
I saw that tweet actually. Some retarded social media intern fucked up and corrected their statement twice:
First they said one in 5000 patients. Then they corrected to one in 5000 doses (as it is reported in the April 2021 document). Then they realised that they didn't clarify that those are Verdachtsfälle, meaning suspected cases, rather than proven cases, either by direct proof or by proving a statistical significance. That's when they made a new tweet saying explicitly that they are Verdachtsfälle.

If you don't speak German, you shouldn't get so worked up over tweets you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.14688334]

>>14688318
>criticizing CDC and the FDA for "bad science".
I'm criticising you for being imprecise.
> (notice it's much higher than the previous official statistics)
You should have said "notice how it's much higher than the official statistics from other continents". But by saving "previous", you're making two mistakes at the same time: the number of 1 in 5000, or 0.2 in 1000 doses is much older than the 2 months old publication by the Americans. Why do you call it "previous" if it was published over a year later? Why do you call it "the official statistics", implying that there is ONE official statistics that comprises America, Germany etc? Each country has their own official statistics, you're comparing apples with pears. And last but not least you're comparing a number for suspicions (Verdachtsfälle) to the number of real cases. Are you doing this on purpose or are you seriously surprised that there's a difference?

[Anonymous No.14688339]

>>14688221
not for young men they aren't
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2791253

Among males 16 to 24 years of age, the excess number of myocarditis events per 100000 vaccinees in the 28-day risk periods after the first dose of BNT162b2 was 1.55 (95% CI, 0.70-2.39) events and after the second dose was 5.55 (95% CI, 3.70-7.39) events*, and it was 1.75 (95% CI, −0.20 to 3.71) events after the first dose of mRNA-1273 and 18.39 (95% CI, 9.05-27.72) events after the second dose

During the 28-day risk period after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, there were 73 myocarditis cases. Excess events of myocarditis were 3.26 (95% CI, 1.90-4.61) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among all males, and 1.37 (95% CI, −0.14 to 2.87) events per 100000 individuals with a positive test result among males aged 16 to 24 years

[Anonymous No.14688343]

>>14688326
Why did they tweet about data from a year and 2 months later?

>If you don't speak German, you shouldn't get so worked up over tweets you don't understand
I will report your post to the BfV for xenophobia

[Anonymous No.14688352]

>>14688334
>Why do you call it "previous" if it was published over a year later?
I hadn't seen the actual date of the German data, which I assumed to be the same of the tweet since that's how things usually work in my continent

[Anonymous No.14688358]

>>14688334
>Why do you call it "the official statistics", implying that there is ONE official statistics that comprises America, Germany
Whatever is in Reuters, snopes, the AFP press, the international coalition of fact checkers in general becomes the " official statistics" which will be repeated everywhere

[Anonymous No.14688366]

>>14688343
The Inlandsgeheimdienst can suck my Schwanz if I'm in the Ausland.
>Why did they tweet about data from a year and 2 months later?
Again, either language or reading the message behind a tweet. They didn't "tweet about the numbers", their main message was "if you have side effects, report them to the German version of VAERS". They never claimed the numbers were new and a simple look at PEI (which they even reference) will reveal that it's old. Only /pol/ completely freaked out because they didn't realise this.

If I tweet "one in three testicular cancers is discovered too late, learn how to check yourself for lumps", does it matter if the number I open the tweet with is brand new or a year old? Or even ten? Ok, I made it up on the spot, but if that number was real. My main message would be: check your balls for lumps, not "breaking news, one in the cancers..."

[Anonymous No.14688371]

>>14688339
>Among males 16 to 24 years of age
If my airplane was flown by two 16 to 24 year-old males, I would be worried about a lot of things that aren't related to the Covid vaccine.

[Anonymous No.14688376]

>>14688352
>I hadn't seen the actual date of the German data,
You don't say.
>which I assumed to be the same of the tweet
Why did you claim it's higher then?

>>14688358
Stop moving the goalposts. The Germans did not publish new numbers and the numbers they repeated aren't higher than previously published numbers.

[Anonymous No.14688393]

>>14688339
>>14688371
Just for the lulz, let's run these numbers and make some extreme assumptions. Let's say all pilots are 16-24. Lets say they are vaccinated before every flight. Let's say all cases of myocarditis are symptomatic (most aren't) and that you don't need to run around to get a heart attack, but can get it while flying. And let's say that the moment isn't random but exactly during the flight. So overestimating the risk by several orders of magnitude. In real life, pilots are older, not constantly vaccinated, and myocarditis normally heals without any complications.
So, let's also say the 1.5 per 100,000 of the first dose are too low and the 5.55 from Pfizer are also boring. Let's use 18.39 even though they stopped vaccinating <30 year-olds with Moderna. And let's use 20, since I'm bad at maths, again adding an order of magnitude.
So, every flight in our absurd scenario has a 20/100,000 chance of a heart attack. The probability for two heart attacks would be 400/10,000,000,000, or 4/100,000,000.
let's Google real quick how many flights there are. I found something like 30,000 commercial airline flights in the US per day. So, in average, in our horrifically overestimated risk scenario, it would take 83 days for such a double heart attack.
Now you can start adding the probabilities: people aren't getting Moderna? Ok, one crash every ~1000 days. They are not vaccinated every day, but let's say once per year if they booster regularly? Ok, how do we model this. Let's say daily heart attacks for a month only? Makes once every 144,000 days, or 400 years.
And now consider that daily heart attacks for a month are still ridiculous. Or that not everyone is 16-24. Or....

So, no. If you think about it for a minute, then you see that the vaccine is no risk for aviation safety whatsoever. It's fun to run such numbers in your head, but if you're honestly anxious because of that, you should see a therapist.

[Anonymous No.14688441]

>>14688221
/thread

I swear covid conspiracies are so fucking boring, can you retards please concentrate on actually interesting things

[Anonymous No.14688564]

>>14688441
That's right, nothing to see here folks.

[Anonymous No.14689147]

[Anonymous No.14689159]

>>14689147
>buy my vitamin D supplements
>don't be a sheep, buy my sheep dewormer

[Anonymous No.14689325]

>>14689159
>vitamin d
>well studied
>$3 for 5000 gelcaps
oh wow share more of your hot redpilled opinions, ass eater

[Anonymous No.14690971]

>>14688308
>Neck yourself.
No need, I'm vaccinated

[Anonymous No.14692429]

>>14688441

[Anonymous No.14694121]

This thread is amusing to read well done. As pilot myself, the last thing you need to worry about is heart attacks, and more like age limit extension to 70 years and the demand for pilots resulting in more incompetent people of low intelligence falling through the cracks, passing training, and getting to the point they can kill a group of people. I’ve been around some complete idiots who do not belong in airplanes let alone passenger jets. Remember that pilot certs are given by human DPEs. And humans make mistakes. Almost all crashes resulting in loss of life are results of pilot “human” judgment error. Not many are medical issues.

[Anonymous No.14695065]

>>14688205
many such cases