I actually looked in VAERS and did an export of the accessible data. Most of the numbers touted are generally around 10k, although VAERS underreporting is a well-known issue, and, VAERS data quality is suspect in the first place, by design.

If you want a website that has more data though:

https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/09/10/vaers-summary-for-covi...

Isn't citing VAERS on anti-vax bingo?

That person is writing in a way that looks fact based but is not. As you noticed, some statements of what is supposed to be accepted as true are false.

For example, all the vaccines still protect extremely well against hospitalization and death EVEN with Delta. Which is what this whole discussion is about, why vaccines help to keep our hospitals open. So the fact that they would say that the vaccine isn't really helpful anymore because of delta is just purely false.

I think this whole “rah rah do it for the community” is the wrong message to send to the final group of the unvaccinated. The government needs to message on the benefit to the individual.

I can tell you that the ONLY reason I am vaccinated is because I want to maximize my chances of the negative consequences of Covid impact TO ME. I honestly don’t give two shits about anyone else outside my family. As some of you do gooders read this in horror, realize that among the general populace, most people’s motivation behind their decision to vaccinate is not that far from mine.

No one likes to admit it, but objectivism and what’s in it for me are a lot more prevalent than folks like to admit. If our government was smart, they’d realize that and shift the message accordingly.

If you die then it will be really bad for the economy, and you don't want a bad economy, do you?

As long as I am not resurrected into said bad economy, I’m ok with it.

He can't, because it's garbage.

Going to suggest that rather than mudslinging, you do the work of looking at VAERS [1] yourself

Alternatively, you could use VAERSanalysis [2], or Openvaers [3]

In this spirit of openness, here is also an NPR article [4] on VAERS data quality/verification issues, and how the data may not be considered high quality, that anti-vaxxers use it to spread disinformation. I'm adding that specifically because it is the contrary opinion about the quality of the data and I believe in an open debate. I am not an anti-vaxxer, being up on all my vaccines, and then some due to overseas work, along with one experimental vaccine, but not covid vaccinated yet.

[1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/

[2] https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/09/10/vaers-summary-for-covi...

[3] https://openvaers.com/covid-data

[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/14/1004757...

Quick reminder that VAERS isn't a legitimate source. The data there is unverified.

VAERS has some data quality problems, however the CDC considers it a legitimate source.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

The main point is "legitimate source for what?". A reporting system like VAERS errs widely on the side of overreporting and explicitly doesn't require any causality, so that its data can be mined for surprising patterns to investigate that might uncover a causal link we didn't know about.

Any "There's X VAERS reports of the vaccine causing Y" claims thus heavily misuse the data source, because that's not what it is capturing.

There is spurious data in VAERS, but the CDC has methods in place to filter those out in their research into adverse cardiac effects. Their numbers are in no way exaggerated.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...

... yes, as I said, the purpose is to inform further research based on it, because the reports showed a suspicious pattern. How is that relevant to the thread here with the "the vaccine killed 15000 people, because there is 15000 reports in VAERS" claim?

Hey I have my suspicions but wanted to ask first :)