Winston

I am asking questions, you seem quite concerned that I am asking questions. Nope not saying conspiracy, nope not saying they are counted differently. Asking for transparent data. In science we need data to prove our conclusion, we need data in order to confirm or counter our hypothesis. This is quite basic scientific methodology.

We do not know this, we need data to confirm that is the case, this is simple data analysis. 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. How many of these hospitalization cases are due to cancer?

That is exactly what I am trying to figure out, hence the question " are they (vaccinated and unvaccinated) hospitalize with COVID or because of COVID ",

I would be happy to admit it, please provide the data that supports this. We are looking for the same data.

1. I get your point, 15 % of the unvaccinated population makes up 25 % of hospitalizations and 49 % of ICU patients. But the argument made by CITIZEN_2015 was about who is filling up hospital beds, by number its vaccinated at a rate of 2.5x. 2. Please cite where I state or make this claim? If not please correct this comment. 3. "you are just another conspiracy nut job." Why the Ad Hominem attack Aristides? I am asking questions, showing data right from the government.

Yes they are not equal, please read what I said, " nearly equal" does not mean "equal" The difference is 5%, between ICU unvaccinated and ICU vaccinated. Hence Nearly equal.

Please cite where I state or make this claim? You seem to think I am against vaccinations, I am not. I am against this idea that a person who is unvaccinated is the root cause of hospital failures.

The link is related to the premise that unvaccinated individuals are the primary cause of hospital bed limitations, "who choose to not be vaccinated for Covid are filling up the hospital beds ". This is factually incorrect according to https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations#vaccine-status-data, more vaccinated patients are in hospital beds, thus the premise of the argument, at least for Ontario is false, vaccinated individuals are "filling up" hospital beds at a rate of 2.5 x more than unvaccinated. There are 1433 vaccinated in hospital beds. There are 560 unvaccinated in hospital beds. What is so hard for me to understand is your confidence in hospitalizations due to COVID, how do we know they are in the ICU due to COVID? Where is this data that indicates reason for hospitalization.

I don't, reread what I wrote, I am asking for specific data irrelevant of vaccine status.

"Totally frustrated that those who choose to not be vaccinated for Covid are filling up the hospital beds" 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

Great question Aristides, if we had this data that would help determining risk.

I am asking questions, simple questions, questions that should easily be answered. I am suggesting we do not know if someone entering the hospital is entering because of covid rather than entering with covid. For example, I might test positive with covid, 2 days later I get a hip infection due to a prosthetic implant. Is this a covid hospitalization or a hip replacement hospitalization? Agenda? I want real data, preferably with reason for hospitalization, age and any comorbidities, thus finding the risk to the general public.

Same link I sent previous https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations#vaccine-status-data My argument is that both vaccinated and unvaccinated are hospitalized at different values, with higher vaccinated hospitalizations. The ICU numbers are nearly equal as well. Thus, your argument that its the unvaccinated that are the issue is not based on the data.

1. I would like to see exactly what 1 kg of CO2 does to 1 unit of climate change please. 2. I am aware of the green house effect, my question is the exact measurable unit for unit outcomes this effect has on the globe. 4. Give me an example of someone who is against man made climate change that had no credibility or funding lost? 5. It is not about explaining an alternative theory, it is about questioning the current theory.

Cases of COVID, not reason in hospital. Ie Did they arrive to the hospital because of covid, or did they arrive at the hospital from a car accident and tested positive? Do we know this?

Correct it shows 13 more unvaccinated ICU cases, now the question is of those people in ICU how many are there with COVID vs due to COVID? Hence my original question.

Hospitalization cases: Unvaccinated cases 441 Partially vaccinated cases 100 Fully vaccinated cases 1327 Says that right in the data

1. This is an assertion that needs to be proven, hence why I asked, 1kg of CO2 causes what effect? If its mathematical a unit of input must result in a unit of output. 2. No, I am looking for specific measurable data from 1kg of CO2 input to a unit of climate change output, not generalizations, this is part of the issue. 3. University level, or experts? Again where are these debates today? 4. Can a scientist come out to the world with a view that society has minimal effect on climate change without loosing notability or funding? That was the question, if a scientist can not express a differing view why would we expect an alternative theory?

1. My issue is not the climate changing. My issue is the assumption of majority man made climate change. How can one determine effects of an input in the system if the system can not be accurately predicted? For example burning a specified amount of diesel a week, causes 1 kg of Co2 gas to be released into the atmosphere, what specific effect(s) does this 1kg release of CO2 have to the climate or change in climate? I am not looking for generalizations or an LCA, but specific measurable changes, from mass released to resultant climate change. I have not found anyone that can answer this question, if you can that would be great.2. Show me a debate between climate scientists university level where one argues for majority man made climate change and argues minimal man made climate change? Can a scientist come out to the world with a view that society has minimal effect on climate change without loosing notability or funding?

What statistic shows that people in the hospital are in the hospital due to covid, rather than due to initial conditions? No, I think you flipped the data, as the data shows there are more vaccinated hospitalizations than the unvaccinated. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations

Question: statistically are these people in the hospital due to COVID or with COVID? There is a major difference between the two conditions. The general public is not responsible for maintaining the health care system. There are a number of high paid individuals who chose to take a position. Vaccines are not a guarantee and do not prevent hospitalizations or ICU cases.

The push for climate alarmism is primarily based on models with little understanding of how the climate functions globally. I can agree that the alarmism is unnecessarily and cult like. I would say it has become religious, where those asking questions are hunted down. However, where your article looses me is when it makes the assertion this is due to young people loosing faith in God, an assertion with no evidence. The reason could be that young people today are not taught to ask questions (what, how and why) or critically think, they are told what to think. It would be better for (less educated) young people to take more logical reasoning, scientific methodology courses, providing them with the ability to critically think about the ideologies presented. Fundamentally the climate change claim is a claim of ethics or morals, ie if our actions hurt or kill someone on the other side of the planet, should we change the way we behave?

Everything has funding to some extent, this funding requires bias to some extent. You are correct an oil and gas company probably would never refund a university research center if it came out with negative CO2 effects on the environment. But the same applies to government funding, the government would never refund a university research center if it came out with positive CO2 effects on the environment. Both positions are biased. How do you determine which is correct? Peer review still has bias, for example the reviewer may have colleges working on the same type of paper being reviewed. As a result the peer review may come back requiring corrections, but the paper introduced by the reviewers colleges is sent for publishing. Again either a bias or personal benefit is almost impossible to counter.

How does one determine a reputable source? Appeal to authority with a clean backround, little to non bias and a track record of correct repeatable results?

https://repolitics.com/forums/guidelines/ If you want civil discourse behave civil, add to the conversation with supporting evidence, opinion or perspective that creates a positive discussion environment . Add to discussions and please consider taking a few critical thinking, introduction to logic and reasoning courses.