There's been a push politically to get people to take what are experimental vaccinations. There's not enough data or evidence to conclusively proove they are safe or effective; taking one is a speculative move by definition. It's not that people are vax or anti-vax, it's that they want to know it's safe and effective and there's no data to back that up right now. Just on the face of it you aren't going to turn out vaccines on a dime, we have stories like the Emergent factory in Baltimore throwing out millions of bad vaccines and we know some made it to market out of that factory. Even if the design is sound the implimentation has yet to be conclusively prooven out.

VAERS is currently showing close to 10k deaths from the vaccine and everyone is saying that number is understated. Non-medical Speculators are looking at death and maming rates from Nov20 - Jan21 for the vaccine and projecting high\low bounds and finding the current number is the low bound and the high bound is at around 100k deaths and 250k mamings with many more hospitalizations. I'm seeing physicians saying they're understated as much as 5x. The core issue here is VAERS is just like the positivity rates, not everything gets reported and that's historical fact. And you don't have to rely on me for that you can just hit the DB here yourself for direct queries and look at it yourself, heck you can spider the site into a db yourself and go poking.

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php

If you need to look at specifics, each case is on a seperate webpage ergo you can use the "site:" switch on google on that page to do specific keyword matching and get better numbers. And none of the above makes any sense BTW if the data has been maliciously modified, which is a good question to ask. How actually trustable is VAERS?

Complicating the matter further on making any kind of decision, there's a process for early treatment of COVID that is effective at quarantining and extinguishing the virus. Most doctors are not going to advise an experimental vaccine over a treatment.

This was largely pushed by a group of doctors internationally lead by Dr. Peter McCullough. The current health system is not providing treatment instructions with testing results in most states so if you get a positive result you're told to go home and hope it isn't a death sentance.

Pete's youtube where he details his peer reviewed treatment plan is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQrqq94AtPI

What that group has been doing is forming Christian non-profit orgs and raising small dollar capital to setup treatment centers to prescibe drugs with activist doctors and staff in various states, and that has been working. Per McCullough's testimony infront of Texas's HHS Committee, the treatment plan is 85% effective. Net on net, that is what has caused the decline in covid in the US was the discovery of an effective early in-home treatment via a combination of drugs. By giving people a treatment plan where they can quarantine at home and not bring them into the hospital, they reduce spread as almost all of the spread is from symptomatic patients, not asymptomatic. The reduction in cases happened in December and has been durable. This site has consolidated data on each state although it is no longer being updated.

https://covidusa.net/

If you really want to deep-dive COVID-19 and how the virus works go here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqVIlj2NlRA

The lesson I think everyone needs to learn here is the problem with pandemics is people get hysterical and you have to have trial and error which leads to deaths to learn anything. That hysteria then pollutes data sources. For me this has been one big exercise in realizing the mainstream media does not know what it's talking about and is not trustworthy. They jump to whatever conclusions they are told to way too quickly without asking hard questions first because kids are taught to trust news brands rather than have news literacy in school. Thus they habitually just trust the same brands over and over on a massive scale and it's a nasty habit. I've found that activist organizations and professional orgs and newsletters tend to provide higher quality information a lot of the time, but before I really spend time on them, I background check them.

Case in point.

Looking at the article specifically, it provides no hard numbers of deaths from aspirin vs deaths from vaccines and is a prime example of haphazard muckraking. You've got links to reuters and abc or the WHO (who are now disgraced in many people's eyes). This is the exact kind of thing we did back in the 1900's with advertising heroin and elixers and I'm not saying that out of hyperbole. Replace the word "vaccine" or "aspirin" with heroin then try to disproove the article on it's merits and links. It's a pure he-said she-said article.

End of the day you have to choose who you're going to trust, I trust people with track records.