Winston

"cosmic accident" and "no purpose" find those in a scientific text book? I do not think so. If you took the time to understand the science behind such theories, you would use different words. Why would people have faith in a God, if God does not prove existence? If there is no evidence for a God? Its funny to even think a God would care about LGBT rights or human sexuality.

Based on Alberta data, accounting for age and conditions the risk factor for ICU demand cases may be: There appears to be not a significant difference between ICU cases with those having more than 3 conditions vs those than have no conditions, maybe the maximum is around 20-50% difference. However looking into the age groups, it appears there is a huge difference, where most of the risk is for 60+ age group. But if you examine the same data for deaths, age and conditions, the results are quite different, nearly up to 14% risk factor for 80+ age group with 3 or more conditions. https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#pre-existing-conditions Data based on ICU no conditions 22.3% and 3 or more conditions 33.4% https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm

Interesting results. Also if we incorporate age: https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm Incorporate your data, we can determine risk, given that all "cases" are covid causal and the reason for ICU admission or death.

Even still with these numbers what do they mean? Nothing, nothing valuable can be established with them unless other characteristics are knowing, reason for ICU admission, age, comorbidities. More data is required before a conclusion can be established.

Exactly, this is quite concerning, divide and conquer, create hate towards those that are not responsible, thus shielding those that are responsible.

Sure, I am merely pointing out that the numbers suggested were not for the current data set.

I asked you to clarify what you meant? What comparisons are making between Germany and today? If the argument is, the difference is choice, there are serious problems with the position.

Thanks for the update.

Odd that data shows otherwise https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations Unvaccinated cases 123 Partially vaccinated cases 18 Fully vaccinated cases 137

Then what did you mean that the Jews could not choose, but the unvaccinated could choose? Both suggest that the mandates enforced upon either group were justified given either group had a choice. Please clarify.

Thanks for the comment, I was starting to wonder if maybe I was not clear in my questions. The funny thing is, the data I am asking for probably helps the OP argument.

Wait, so let me get this right, your saying if a Jew had a choice to change their ethnicity, back 1940s in Germany, then they would have deserved all their rights removed, because it was a "choice" just like the unvaccinated? Yikes.

Ill be a bit more specific, what does one ton of CO2 released do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? If the opposite happens, one ton of CO2 is removed, what does that do to the climate, how is it measured and how is the resulting climate change measured? I appreciate your feedback Michael, this is an interesting topic.

Reread my last post, maybe twice. "You are being informed of the risks. "- How? What data do I have access to? How can I make my own decision on my own risk without the data? Example : If a doctor tells me to take a pill, tells me that there are basically no risks, but refuses to provide the study data on the pills side effects. I would not take the pill, would you?

No, I am being told the risks. I am not being informed of the risks. If they wanted to inform me of the risks I would be allowed to examine any statistical data and allowed answers to questions.

Fascinating, you would object to viewing data and being informed of the risks. This is quite concerning.

No that is a fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam, appeals to authority can only be used if we agree the authority has sufficient data to make a conclusion. I am stating there has not be sufficient data presented to make that conclusion. The pushback against asking for data is astounding. How is anyone supposed to determine the risk factor for themselves with out the data?

In part because no one in the scientific community denies access to data if they are presenting a conclusion. Also because their actions may effect my/our future, both in health, metal health, finances, and societal economics. This is not about immunology or medical procedure/methodology, this is about risk factor using stats, something a mathematician or statistician can easily accomplish.

Why can't we see the data? Why can't I ask for the data? Why is asking for data considered a threat or a conspiracy theory? "You say you are not qualified to draw conclusions from raw data" - Never said that, I am qualified to draw conclusion from raw data, part of my position is doing just that. Never the less, anyone should be able to view the data irrelevant of their qualifications. "Why do they have to prove they are being up front about this. " - In science we trust the data (assuming no tampering), but not an expert assuming a conclusion without providing data. Never assume a conclusion without verifying the data first, I am doing my due diligence.

Reread my post, my purpose is stated. "Why do you need this information in the first place?"

Reread my last post, I am asking questions, nothing more nothing less, no accusations, no conspiracy. Lets try something different. What is my argument or request from your understanding of my last post?

I don't. But I am a scientist, and I would rather see data indicating the conclusion instead of assuming the conclusion. "Why do you think there is some conspiracy? " Please cite where I state or make this claim? Please read this at least: Why am I asking these questions? - If the vast majority of hospitalization cases are due to the comorbidities, than COVID is not a concern for the general public. But if the vast majority of hospitalization cases are due to COVID, then there is higher concern. If the hospitalization cases are in the 70+ age group, there is less of a concern. If the hospitalization cases are in the age of 40 or less, than there is greater concern. "Do you think that if they listed the co-morbidity of every patient and when they were put in ICU you are competent to determine what was what?" - I dont need to, I purely want to understand the risk to general public,.

If you want to talk about only ICU then yes I 100% agree that over half of ICUs are occupied by unvaccinated, (leaving out partially vaccinated). But that brings me to the question, why? Why is a Vaccinated or unvaccinated person in ICU? Is it because of covid or is it because of another condition?

"You are suggesting that covid patients are counted as such on the basis of whether they are vaccinated or not." Please cite where I state or make this claim? "I'm not concerned about questions."- Great than answer the question: is it possible that someone who tests positive for covid, is not hospitalized because of covid, say maybe for cancer?

Who is filling up the most hospital beds CITIZEN_2015? There is 1433 vaccinated in hospital beds There is 560 unvaccinated in hospital beds Vaccinated patients take 2.5 x more hospital beds than unvaccinated. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations#vaccine-status-data Your entire argument hinges on beds taken, with this idea than we should look to vaccine status as a point to blame. I would rather look to the people in charge, who get paid and who have responsibility to maintain the hospital.