First of all: "Nope." You're just pulling that seatbelt "stat" out of your butt.
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbelts/facts.html
I guess you lost that bet, huh?
The point is, they made extraordinary claims BEFORE THE DATA WAS AVAILABLE.
That was not only dishonest, but unethical.
Saying they "didn't have all the data then" is making excuses for their obvious push to get everyone vaccinated -- and only afterwaard did they try to see if there are any negative effects.
I bet the majority of people who die in car accidents weren't told that seatbelts have a 94% efficacy rate like they told us about the vaccines, mainly because the 2018 stats above show it's more like 51%-60%.
Funny how the amount of lies they tell diminish when the amount of actual data available increases. The rush to "sell" the public on the vaccine was based on incomplete data and a lack of ethics. It was purely political with a heavy dose of fear-mongering.
Seatbelt point taken; a better way for me to have communicated the point would have been to say that if you compared the percentage of people fatally injured in traffic accidents who were wearing seatbelts in 1970 to the percentage of people fatally injured in traffic accidents who were wearing seatbelts today, today’s percentage would likely be higher. But I don’t have those numbers, so can’t say for sure.
About the vaccine, did you watch the videos you posted? The one from ABC7 didn’t say anything about the vaccinated population accounting for a growing proportion of COVID deaths; that’s just in the headline. In the second video, the guy even makes the same point I’m making, and goes on to say “but they said it would be perfect, and it wasn’t perfect!” And shows some clips of Dr. Fauci saying something that I believe has borne out to be true… the vaccine has been extremely effective at preventing serious disease and death, if you kept up with boosters for the emerging variants. I don’t recall anyone ever saying it would be 100% effective in preventing illness, transmission, or death.
Was there some political motivation? Sure. Was it “purely” political? I don’t believe so; there was a new, dangerous disease circulating, and I believe a lot of public spirited folks were doing the best they could to get people to take steps to reduce the risk. Some of them probably stretched the truth, which is inexcusable, but I believe the vast majority were doing the best they could with incomplete data and a politically divided population. Was it a government-wide conspiracy to get nano-bots into your bloodstream so the 5G towers could transmit Bill Gates’s instructions? No.