Just make sure you cook them properly.
Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Oh look, the nutjob conspiracy theorists were right again.
Are you accusing the Chinese of being incompetent and woke?
-1,000 social credits for you.
The macroeconomic data is showing the monies flowing out of china and into india. With any luck, where we're going we won't be needing social credits.
You flip flopper.
I ordered a gift from Wayfair the other day, and that lady will be disappointed to hear Maddie McCann didn't jump out of the box.
It kinda looks like the countries with the highest vaccination rates suffer more from the Delta variant.
Oh look, a casual inference, based on an easily disproven premise, hinting at something both vague and sinister.
Vaccination has saved hundreds of thousands of lives during the delta surge, thanks to the vaccination of the elderly. For some reason that isn't a gripping enough narrative for you.
Source ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-vaccines-have-prevented-10-400-deaths-in-older-adults
This is just the UK.. as at April.
Saucy enough for you?
That's clearly flawed, since it also says vaccination reduces transmission - which is untrue.
That's propaganda , not science.
[article]
The PHE analysis estimated the impact of the vaccination programme by combining data on vaccine effectiveness against mortality and the vaccine coverage. Observed deaths were then adjusted by the impact to estimate the daily expected deaths in the absence of vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness against mortality was based on the most recent PHE estimates of effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic infection (58%) and of death given infection (54%) which combined gives 81% protection against death.
[/article]
So to measure the impact of vaccines, they assumed the impact of vaccines, then using that assumption they calculated what the difference ought to be without the vaccines, and then concluded the vaccine had the stated impact, based on the difference they calculated. So they did a calculation, expert calculations no doubt, as far as I can tell the science checks out to me, gets the dantes seal of approval.
The PHE analysis estimated the impact of the vaccination programme by combining data on vaccine effectiveness against mortality and the vaccine coverage. Observed deaths were then adjusted by the impact to estimate the daily expected deaths in the absence of vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness against mortality was based on the most recent PHE estimates of effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic infection (58%) and of death given infection (54%) which combined gives 81% protection against death.
[/article]
So to measure the impact of vaccines, they assumed the impact of vaccines, then using that assumption they calculated what the difference ought to be without the vaccines, and then concluded the vaccine had the stated impact, based on the difference they calculated. So they did a calculation, expert calculations no doubt, as far as I can tell the science checks out to me, gets the dantes seal of approval.
Why do I have to bother to source my shit, when it's just the numbers we've all been watching for a year and a half. I should sign up on Twitter and just regurgitate my feed on here in lieu of having any grip on the facts instead.
To what do you attribute the startling reduction of deaths and hospitalizations amongst the elderly?
I've already said that it was widely reported that the Delta variant was a much less severe strain.
You are making exactly the mistake you accuse me of making - spotting a pattern and attributing it to something that suits my view.
So I asked you for a source, and there is none.
Just go back to the football forum and post about how every player were linked to is "boss" you fuckin halfwit.
I'd like to think this is true. Is there similar evidence from less vaccinated countries?
Do you count Palestine as a country ?
And I'm saying why do I have to bother sourcing my material when you don't? Can't I just say its widely reported and hint at things from the shadows, one after the next, never ceasing, and never actually advancing a detailed account of what I think is happening?
You go look at hospitalization and death rates county by county in the USA in delta ravaged areas and they track with how well vaccinated the vulnerable population is especially. We've never had more obvious data about anything in real time. if you can't see it, you don't want to.
Why don't you want the vaccines to be effective rosco. You need them.
They recorded those rates with the precision and skill of a medieval stable boy. That's a problem when you want certain kinds of people to get vaccinated. In the old days, when evolutionary biologists bothered to collect precise and accurate evidence, they had very little problem making all but the most far gone religious fanatics accept their conclusion. So it's not a problem with these people you probably look down upon. It's a problem with today's doctors and virologists being absolute morons who think they can do some useless bullshit work, and expect it to carry weight because they have letters after their name.
@Rosco
You’re very adept at posting “random” facts without explaining what you “think” they means’ - presumably because it allows you to deny that was the point you’re making when you get pulled apart.
So what is it you you think those two pretty pictures you posted actually mean?
I’m really curious - the one on the left doesn’t look accurate (Australia & NZ don’t have that level of population vaccination) and the one on the right Is annotated to state it’s missing or incomplete data... in any case what’s its saying... that 93% of the COVID infected in Australia are Delta? NZ is yellow too... they only have cases from people in quarantine returning from overseas.” - they have no community transmission and their vaccination rate is even lower than Australia.
So what point is it you think they’re making?
You’re very adept at posting “random” facts without explaining what you “think” they means’ - presumably because it allows you to deny that was the point you’re making when you get pulled apart.
So what is it you you think those two pretty pictures you posted actually mean?
I’m really curious - the one on the left doesn’t look accurate (Australia & NZ don’t have that level of population vaccination) and the one on the right Is annotated to state it’s missing or incomplete data... in any case what’s its saying... that 93% of the COVID infected in Australia are Delta? NZ is yellow too... they only have cases from people in quarantine returning from overseas.” - they have no community transmission and their vaccination rate is even lower than Australia.
So what point is it you think they’re making?
Isn’t that the whole point - the older more vulnerable population are more likely to be vaccinated and the people being infected are younger and less likely to have serious problems.
What we’re seeing in Australia right now is - the people getting hospitalised or dying are mostly unvaccinated.
There are also younger people betting infected and dying.
The Melbourne outbreak last year was, in large parts, due to rampant transmission in social/aged care.
The current NSW outbreak is more community based - less deaths (so daft) but also some worrying younger casualties.
I keep saying nobody really knows enough to make any solid conclusions, but there are some scientists who advised against mass vaccination during the pandemic, because it could increase transmission.
And the graph seems to lend some support to that theory.
If you have a vaccine that isn't all that good at preventing transmission, then in light of everyone being vaccinated they go out hugging and spitting over each other like diseased rodents, it's pretty obvious transmission will increase, and also pretty obvious a stupid scientist will get it backwards and come up with a needlessly complex theory for how vaccines increase transmission due to biochemical reasons.
The stupid data scientist I should say, which is pretty much what all scientists have become, because they're too lazy to actually perform experiments and would rather plot a graph.
The stupid data scientist I should say, which is pretty much what all scientists have become, because they're too lazy to actually perform experiments and would rather plot a graph.