Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
where is it in your post?
It's not there obviously, but not because I omitted it. ..
hahahaha
Are you Boris Johnson.
Who omitted it then? - the dodgy website or Facebook page you copied and pasted from.
Is this you admitting you post selective bits of information because it fits your view?
Or are you just grandstanding your idiocy?
Like I said earlier - you can tell the bullshit level by whether you post a link or a screen shot.
Can I ask are you dismissing the scientifiic facts in there because of the screenshot ?
You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
The CDC data shows you're more likely to get infected if you're vaccinated and you're ignoring it.
Incredible.
and your link to the data?
Even the fact checkers admit it:
https://www.reuters.com/business/he...vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/
You consider them reliable
https://www.reuters.com/business/he...vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/
You consider them reliable
And what are the recommendations?
Go find them yourselves.
I did - I want to know what you took from it - whether you just took away the bits you wanted to and ignored the bits you didn’t?
It might go some way to explaining why you “didn’t omit” the pertinent information that was mysteriously not included in your initial and subsequent posts.
So you're still ignoring the undeniable evidence from the CDC as reported by Reuters.
Because it doesn't suit you.
Which bit do you think I’m ignoring?
Let’s make it wast for you Ross :
What changes to CDC recommendations did the report enact?
What does the report suggest is the safest way to protect against COVID?
Does the report suggest that acquiring immunity through infection carries serious risks?
Any limitations to the study that may impact the finding that acquired natural immunity protected better against Delta than vaccination?
How did the report analyse the severity of initial infection, or account for the full range of illness caused by prior infection?
Why would you not mention any of the above when quoting from the article?
Take your time.
What changes to CDC recommendations did the report enact?
What does the report suggest is the safest way to protect against COVID?
Does the report suggest that acquiring immunity through infection carries serious risks?
Any limitations to the study that may impact the finding that acquired natural immunity protected better against Delta than vaccination?
How did the report analyse the severity of initial infection, or account for the full range of illness caused by prior infection?
Why would you not mention any of the above when quoting from the article?
Take your time.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff
I'm working today.
I'm just going to say what I've always said, the vaccines have made covid worse. Not better. All you need to do is compare Low vaccinated areas with high vaccinated areas.
The CDC have finally begun to admit it.
I'm working today.
I'm just going to say what I've always said, the vaccines have made covid worse. Not better. All you need to do is compare Low vaccinated areas with high vaccinated areas.
The CDC have finally begun to admit it.
Why do you burden your brains with data?
[article]
vaccine efficacy and social duty
if you have a vaccine that reduces your risk of death from covid by 50%, that sounds like a big deal. but it might not be. if your risk was only 1 in 10,000 to begin with, who cares? the risk reduction is not worth the side effects.
but what if your initial risk was high? is it then a good idea? well, it depends.
if the vaccines also doubles your risk of getting covid, then no. 2X risk X 50% risk reduction puts you right back where you started and you experienced the side effects and risks of vaccination for no gain. and wow do they keep ignoring that one.
the societal cohorts are so mixed up now as to make extracting data from them on this really difficult. when you have near complete vaccination in the high risk groups and only the weakest and sickest unvaxxed, the bias by group becomes overwhelming. when, because the act of vaccination itself makes you more likely to get covid, it means that the vaxxed groups are more likely to have had covid and thus naturally acquired immunity you add what is a potentially large amount of outcome bias that cannot be quantified or adjusted for.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/vaccine-efficacy-and-social-duty
[/article]
See my child, even the more intellectually honest of the heretics have seen that it is futile to analyse the data, you can see in the tone of his words that he has given up, the data has forsaken him, he sounds broken inside. This will be your fate too unless you repent my children. Only in the light of our lord will you find the answers you seek.
[article]
vaccine efficacy and social duty
if you have a vaccine that reduces your risk of death from covid by 50%, that sounds like a big deal. but it might not be. if your risk was only 1 in 10,000 to begin with, who cares? the risk reduction is not worth the side effects.
but what if your initial risk was high? is it then a good idea? well, it depends.
if the vaccines also doubles your risk of getting covid, then no. 2X risk X 50% risk reduction puts you right back where you started and you experienced the side effects and risks of vaccination for no gain. and wow do they keep ignoring that one.
the societal cohorts are so mixed up now as to make extracting data from them on this really difficult. when you have near complete vaccination in the high risk groups and only the weakest and sickest unvaxxed, the bias by group becomes overwhelming. when, because the act of vaccination itself makes you more likely to get covid, it means that the vaxxed groups are more likely to have had covid and thus naturally acquired immunity you add what is a potentially large amount of outcome bias that cannot be quantified or adjusted for.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/vaccine-efficacy-and-social-duty
[/article]
See my child, even the more intellectually honest of the heretics have seen that it is futile to analyse the data, you can see in the tone of his words that he has given up, the data has forsaken him, he sounds broken inside. This will be your fate too unless you repent my children. Only in the light of our lord will you find the answers you seek.
I’m in no rush Ross - take your time looking at those questions - it’s relevant to the logic you posted above.
Take a look at the data for NSW that’s linked to your even earlier post. Here it is :
https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/699518/20220120-COVID-19-Monitor.pdf
Take a look at the study I linked for you earlier - the one that appeared in the peer reviewed medical journal yiu we’re looking for. Here it is again :
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039
Take all weekend if you want.
You want me to comment on a study, not peer reviewed, where the author admits bias ?
What sort of idiot would put any stock in that ?
And even if you did put any stock in it, it doesn't contradict anything the CDC have said.
No.
(I'm deliberately keeping it short so you can't invent an imaginary thing I've said in the word no)
There is no higher authority than the lord almighty hallowed by thy name.
This is just a comment posted by a keyboard warrior in the comments section.
Advice from Staff of Rhode Island Dept of Health states:
'COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at protecting against serious illness and death from COVID-19. These vaccines are some of the most important tools we have to protect ourselves against COVID-19 and its variants.
Scientists and researchers learned that protection from COVID-19 vaccines can decrease over time—especially in people age 65 or older. Getting a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine helps increase your protection against COVID-19 and its variants. This is normal; there are lots of vaccines that require booster doses.
Building protection against COVID-19 is still important. As COVID-19 spreads, the virus has more chances to change and to create new variants of concern, like Delta and Omicron. COVID-19 vaccines and boosters can prevent new variants. '
Yeah… If I’d made such a fucking idiot out of myself, I’d probably want to say as little as possible as well.
I know you won’t answer the questions I posed - because you admit that you’re a fucking idiot, a con man or just plan lying through your teeth if you did.
Usually, this is the point, you try to divert to something else, start arguing semantics or disappear from the thread for a few days, in the hope, I don’t know, that people forget what a whopping great idiot you’ve just made of yourself.
I forgot… you could log in as Dantes and post something in support of yourself… there is that, I suppose.
No my child. Before Dantes was born again he would have spent much effort trying to make you see the laughable fallibility in the infallible word of the data science, and to recognize the empirical conclusions of actual science are totally different to the statistical conclusions of data science, all on the assumption that your memory still serves you well enough to know there isn't a medical professional or epidemiologist or doctor that has ever lived who knows a fraction of what I know about applied mathematics and nature. For example, the medical advice posted just above is word for word so hilariously retarded I can't even. Yet you don't even see it do you?
Alas that was then my child, but now even in my hubris I do not place myself above the lord, and neither should you. He has given his gift to you, and if you start debating it and trying to use science yourself to validate his gift, it is a sin and smacks of ungratefulness. Do you lack faith? Do not insult his holiness by such sacrilege.
Alas that was then my child, but now even in my hubris I do not place myself above the lord, and neither should you. He has given his gift to you, and if you start debating it and trying to use science yourself to validate his gift, it is a sin and smacks of ungratefulness. Do you lack faith? Do not insult his holiness by such sacrilege.