The comparison is fine. The total sample size is the people in each age group that got each vaccine. The expected value of heart inflammation is taken from some other previous data across the entire population, then the percentages from that are used to calculate what you'd expect to find in the vaccinated groups if all else is equal. So it's quite logical to compare that with the observed cases of heart inflammation.
So as a scientist, you'd have a theory that the vaccine is safe and is not linked to those heart inflammation cases (the frogfish theory). The tables above are how you'd test your theory, you'd predict that the number of heart inflammations will fall within the expected range (the frogfish prediction). Lo and behold, the observations disprove your predictions and disprove your theory. It's a shame that lots of young people now have needless heart conditions in order to find this out, but you live and you learn (the frogfish philosophy).
It isn't. In the first scenario, n=765, which is the total number of reports of it. The sample is all people that reported it, not a random 765 people. Then it's comparing that to the number of people out of 765 that it'd expect to report it. It makes no sense.
I think it's best if you don't argue with anti vaxxers who've been vaxxed.
No, that's not what it's comparing. The population of all vaccinated people is everyone they've taken from the VAERS database. Let's say that is 100,000 people. So out of that 100,000 let's say they expect there to be 10-20 reports (just based off historical data of heart inflammation). That is the expectation range. Then they actually found there were 765 reports (the observed cases in their seven day window). So they're comparing those two numbers, split up by sex and age group.
If it's doing that, then they haven't said it in those screenshots anyway. But, as Woland said, it's kinda a pointless discussion, so will leave to your "science".
You never know, I could be Dantes
So you didn't read the CDC report but decided to criticise it anyway ?
Very scientific.
I found the report myself. It's 2,574 total reported cases in the US in all age groups, so from the 170m people vaccinated, it's not a per 100,000 or anything like that. It's also got a big disclaimer that it's not the views of the CDC on it.
That can't possibly be correct. Either you've misread it, or these researchers don't have any understanding of basic arithmetic beyond what they did in primary school.
Have a look yourself, I obviously have something wrong....
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/03-COVID-Su-508.pdf
Page 13. They give the reports per million vaccines for each grouping. To get the total population you'd have to add up all the rates, work out the fraction it is out of a million, then scale it according to the 2574 total reports. That's a lot of work. They could have just stated how many people they were looking at on page 13. They didn't bother to. So neither will I. Fuck the CDC.
Yep, and then compare that to the overall risks involved with not taking the vaccine. It turns out to be a no brainer.
Yep, and then compare that to the overall risks involved with not taking the vaccine. It turns out to be a no brainer.
I don’t know if “no brainer” works on people who aren’t engaging their brain...
Says the person whose contribution was a massively incorrect fact check website.
Enough of your 'critical thinking' drivel.It's like the last thirty pages discussing the vaccine efficacy and viral mutations were wiped from your brains. Well, it is what it is.
It's like the last thirty pages discussing the vaccine efficacy and viral mutations were wiped from your brains. Well, it is what it is.
It's like the last thirty pages discussing the vaccine efficacy and viral mutations were wiped from your brains. Well, it is what it is.
Thank you.My contribution has been to advise you to seek some help.
Other than that this thread is just amusing entartainment really about any information shared by you or your forum wife.
But its all gone a bit sad now.
I'm taking to ignoring anything you've said tbh, it's a long time since you've been right about anything in this thread.
Sure, I guess 20 years is sort of a long time.
(a) Vaccination drive: less people seem to be dying, it works, the past data doesn't lie, everyone get jabbed, follow the science, spread socialism!
(b) Climate change: the temperatures seem to be the same as always, it won't last, the future data will be doom, follow the science, stop capitalism!
Do you see how your analysis of data is completely the opposite on these two issues? The last words on socialism/capitalism give you a clue on why you've been told to think the way you are happy to think. You actually have no idea about either phenomenon, and your ignorance is being exploited to make you vote for socialism. That's all it is, and it is what it is.
Thank you.
I've discussed it with myself and we think you're not worth listening to
Are you talking to me?
Seriously.
I’m a socialist voter now - how does that work?