Hodad

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? If you're going to lie about something, at least make it vaguely plausible, not something everyone can plainly see is a lie with half a glance. You're like Trump, lying about the largest inauguration crowd ever (well, no, that's obviously not true) lol. FRED Do you need a list of which presidents were in office which years? I can give you a hint, the line climbs showing reductions in deficit (and to surplus) Democrats are in office. Here's a Red and Blue view if that's easier for you. There are many variations of this but this one was easy to read.

This isn't really a debate as much as you desperately denying plainly stated facts, but if it were a debate the question would be the efficacy of the vaccines. And now you've got yourself so turned around that you are claiming that stats that speak clearly and directly to the efficacy of the vaccine are "weak and stupid." lol And now, after quoting PHAC statistics for 2 weeks and dozens of posts, when you can plainly see that they disagree with you, you say that nobody can really know anything. Hand-waving FTL! We know who is most at risk. It's not hard. Simple age stratification is hugely effective because other risk factors correlate well. BUT AGAIN, even if you perform zero standardization the numbers greatly favor vaccination. Any given individual who contracts covid is less likely to go to the hospital and dramatically less likely to die if they have been vaccinated. You imagine that the population over time is a control group, but it is assuredly not. It's absolutely uncontrolled. There are new variants arising, educational changes, behavioral changes etc. But what we do know is this: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. No, we cannot agree to that. It would be great if the total number of deaths dropped, but that's not a measure of vaccine efficacy. It doesn't account for risk. I demonstrated why this is poor reasoning before using automotive safety advancements. Traffic fatalities go up every year, does that mean seat belts and airbags weren't effective? No, of course not. There are other factors to consider. For example, the Omicron variant hit hard in Canada- you get a spike in cases and in deaths, but that doesn't mean the vaccines weren't saving lives. What we CAN measure cleanly is that if someone shows up at the doc with a COVID, they are significantly less likely to be hospitalized and to die if they have been vaccinated. Full stop. Because at-risk Canadians are overwhelmingly vaccinated, the vaccinated population overwhelmingly bears the risk of death. I've been telling you that for dozens of posts. This is why you'd want to standardize that data and compare like to like if you are honestly seeking to determine efficacy. What is the death rate for unvaccinated 50-year-olds vs vaccinated 50-year-olds? Demos in their 20's and 30's (and minors) have a far higher population of unvaxxed and a far higher number of cases than other demos. That's a ton of identified cases with very low risk of death and STILL the Vaccinated group with most of the at-risk people significantly outperform. No, they DO NOT end up dying at the exact same rate as if they were wearing tinfoil hats. That is the whole damn point. Despite having the risk distribution entirely stacked against them, they fare MUCH better than the unvaccinated. Again: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. Everyone should care about the number of deaths. It's a staggering toll and a long story of pain and loss for many families. However, in terms of measuring vaccine efficacy we don't care about that number at all. We simply need to be able to measure whether or not a person infected with COVID is less likely to get seriously ill and to die if they are vaccinated. And the answer is definitively "yes," a vaccinated person is significantly less likely to become severely ill or die if they are vaccinated. How much less likely? Well, PHAC will answer that too: Between August 29, 2022 and September 25, 2022, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series. During the same 4-week period, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series and 1 or more additional doses

You are completely delusional. For the last 30 years every Republican president has increased deficits 1. For the past 30 years, every Democratic president years has decreased deficits over their terms while every Republican has increased deficits 2. Deficit simply means spending is greater than revenue, so yes, obviously tax cuts can create deficits by decreasing revenue. 3. Reagan didn't bring in "extra" revenue, he ran huge deficits, exploding the national debt and creating a burden for every administration after. Aside from being rude, I don't think you're in a position to call other people "useless."

Holy crap. I'm going to award you some kind of trophy, because I've never seen so much wrong crammed into 3 lines. 1. The M1 exploded in early 2020, under Trump, a year before Biden took office 2. The money supply is primarily controlled by the Federal Reserve, which operates independent of the federal government (and the current chair Powell was originally nominated by Trump). Regardless of who is in office, the POTUS is not the primary driver M1. 3. The M1 explosion was deliberate, in response to challenges of the pandemic, with every expectation that inflation would follow. 4. It's not just the US. Central banks around the world turned to loose money to cope with the pandemic. FRED You have not taken Econ 101, but it'd be a really good idea.

Well, as it's not grounded in fact, I don't think there's a solution for that. I mean, we see it here constantly. Every bit of nonsense that is debunked by fact becomes another layer of the "conspiracy." It's looney tunes.

Yes, domestic supply. The exact same metric you mentioned: US rigs in operation. A. Biden had zero influence on whether oil companies are running their rigs or not. Demand and pricing are global, and so was the pandemic. B. Look at the historical data. You're just sort of saying random things and then blaming Biden. You're like the old "Thanks, Obama!" meme come to life.

There's no problem with election fraud in America. What are we trying to solve? ?‍♀️

Dude, you have to know that this is completely unrelated to Biden, right? Like, that's an absurd premise. Like, just a stern word from Biden about sustainability cowed oil companies into ceasing profitable activity. He must be the most powerful POTUS of all time Yet it seems like that's what you're trying to imply. Fact is that demand dropped during the pandemic, so prices dropped, so the least efficient sites were shuttered. They take time to ramp back up and oil producers who are enjoying record profits have a weak incentive to increase supply and push down prices. Why rush do more work and incur more risk for relatively less reward? - It'll happen eventually though. Check the 5-year historical view at the same site you referenced: https://oilprice.com/rig-count Production dropped pretty steeply in the early months of the pandemic under Trump and completely fell off a cliff as companies sent people home and we entered "lockdown."

You're just flailing around now. Death throes. You'd rather talk about *anything* other that the disproportionate rates at which the unvaxxed die and the vaxxed survive. Going back 1.5 years - or 20 years- makes no difference when evaluating efficacy in protecting against hospitalization and death. As vaccines and boosters become available in the timeline it will add new categories to track- it will change the preventer of cases distributed to each category, but it makes no difference in terms of tracking deaths relative to vaccination status. If the vaccines are placebo, as you falsely claim, an infected person with or without vaccination would be equally likely to die. If 40% of the cases were unvaxxed then, ceteris paribus, they would account for 40% of the deaths. Of course, that's not the reality the unvaxxed are overrepresented in the morgue and the vaxxed are dramatically underrepresented. And remember that this entire construction depends on all else being equal, which, in reality is not the case. Vaccination is a choice, it's behavioral. The more risk an individual bears the more likely that individual is to seek mitigation, to get the vaccine. So the bulk of the highest risk individuals, those most likely to die, are in the vaxxed count, then later the boosted count, and more recently the double boosted. Literally everything in the real world condition favors your silly argument- an unvaxxed case population full of children and young adults- and STILL - the vaccine group is much more likely to survive. Only a fool would try to evaluate efficacy without standardizing for risk, but even that same fool can see the results in the non-standardized data. Again: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths.

Hey, Dipshit (not trying to be mean) but it's is completely irrelevant how far back the numbers go. If the vaccines were, as you falsely claim, ineffective, a placebo - as good as a tinfoil hat - the deaths would be in proportion to cases. If 90% if the cases were unvaxxed they should make up 90% of the deaths. If 40% of the cases were unvaxxed then they should make up 40% if the deaths. They don't. They are overrepresented in the morgue. And the standard vax crowd are significantly underrepresented. Again: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. Enjoy! And it gets much uglier for you when standardized for age. The vaccines are effective. The page you keep citing literally states that they are effective, in no uncertain terms, and yet you put your head up your ass so that you don't have to take in that information.

Your Dunning-Kruger is on fire today. You can't just have-wave away facts with a geyser of red herrings, though it's hilarious watching you bluster through the attempt. Here they are again: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. ^^ An unvaccinated person with COVID is much more likely to be hospitalized and to die.

Jeebus, you're thick. You're ranting about things completely unrelated. I'm just going to keep posting these facts. You can either address them or let everyone watch you desperately dodge. The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. The same PHAC data on the same page on the same charts. Again, even without controlling for age, the vaccinated are much less likely to die if they catch COVID. Those numbers are very straightforward. Let them sink in.

Oh my goodness, you've got two whole posts full of nonsense. You either missed the point entirely or are hoping quantity will distract from the facts. Here they are again: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. Yes, the unvaxxed have more than their fair share of COVID deaths, while the standard vaxxed crowd have about half of their share. Even without controlling for age, your people are significantly overrepresented in the morgue compared to the vaccinated.

The premise here is incorrect to start with. The right half of the chart is indeed better, vertically and horizontally. Spikes are smaller in bothe dimensions. The big spike post vax in Jan 2022 is when Omicron landed. I don't think Flu season is likely meaningful in a COVID count except for the fact that they spread under the same conditions. And no, it's not a control group. Many people took advantage of the vaccine protection to abandon other mitigators like masks and social distancing to return to normal-ish life. And the "people I believe" are the same people you believe, and indeed the same people who furnished you with this chart. Except that you only believe them when you think what they provide confirms your bias, and you dismiss the exact same data when it shows you to be incorrect. That's nuts. Let's try something else. Look, here's another view - same PHAC data from which you arbitrarily pick and choose what to believe. ^^The boosters are dramatically more adopted by the elderly and high risk, but the top two rows are the most reaonable comparison. (Not standardizing for age is extremely generous to your case, and still it fails spectacularly.) The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. Even without standardizing the data, it's plain as day that the vaccines significantly reduce severe outcomes and death in people who contract COVID.

I can tell you about calculating rates and standardizing for additional variables. I can point you to those explanations from the same data providers you trust. But I can't understand it for you. Until you grasp that basic fact you'll continue to wallow in erroneous and hasty conclusions. Case in point, the raw numbers- the "death toll" - are not useful for measuring vaccine efficacy. They do not account for disease prevalence. They do not account for the rise of new variants. They do not account for behavioral changes. All they count are deaths. What you are doing with the raw numbers is asinine. It's like looking at traffic fatalities and saying, "The death toll geso up every year, so seatbelts and airbags and ABS brakes are all hooey! I mean, geez, twice as many people died in traffic accidents last year as died in 1950. Why aren't all these so-called safety features saving lives? Why do fatalities go up every year if safety features are so great?" But a person with critical thinking skills will look at that situation and ask are there more drivers and cars and are they driving more? Well, yes. And if you standardize that data to account for those variables you get a rate of fatalities by vehicle mile traveled and can see that passengers are actually 7x safer today than in 1950. ^^ This is why an evaluation of efficacy MUST look at rates, and better still, rates that control for variables. Otherwise you'll give people terrible, deadly advice. As you are currently doing. I can show you the study and statistics to which Wolenski was reacting. If you want to argue that the interim study wasn't a complete view and the directional information was not born out in real practice, I won't argue that. But it's also not reasonable to think that we'll get everything right for a new vaccine for a novel virus. The learning curve has been steep and bumpy. Yet, at the end of the day, this is what the data currently says about current real-world efficacy: "Between August 29, 2022 and September 25, 2022, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series."

Yes, have a baby talk fictional debate with your crusty sock puppet. I do believe you've met your match in terms of credibility, but even he understands the data better than you do. You want to keep repeating 85% (or whatever) ad nauseum, but you can't grasp that there's a reason the same people who gave you that number explained that: "People who were diagnosed with COVID-19 after completing their primary vaccine series were significantly less likely to be hospitalized or to die, particularly if they received an additional dose(s). Between August 29, 2022 and September 25, 2022, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series. During the same 4-week period, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 5 times more likely to die from their illness, compared to cases with a completed primary vaccine series and 1 or more additional doses" Are they crazy people? No. Just people who understand statistics far better than you. I think you're entirely unreachable. But for the folks playing along at home here is an example of why efficacy can only be examined in the context of risk. Imagine that scientists have completed work on the HIV vaccine. In testing it showed that it was 75% effective at treating transmission and it went directly into market. The swinging singles and tinder gadflies rushed to get vaccinated and protect themselves. People in long-term monogamous relationships weren't that interested because they only have the one partner and are not at risk. Fast forward two years. When one looks at the total population data for new cases of HIV one sees that vaccinated people are contracting HIV at the same rate as their unvaccinated peers. A person without critical thinking skills will conclude that the vaccination is ineffective, useless, dangerous or "not a vaccine at all!" But that's silly, because it doesn't control for variables: chiefly, the original risk to people when deciding whether or not to vaccinate. The people who were most at risk took the vaccine, but even at 75% efficacy in preventing transmission they continue to have risk factors (in this case, behavioral) higher than their unvaccinated peers and case counts that pull even. And so, even though the vaccine is offering significant protection, people with low statistical literacy erroneously draw the wrong conclusion from the non-standardized data. That's exactly the trick WestCanMan is trying to pull with regard to the COVID vaccine. People at low risk of death were more likely to selfishly skip the vaccine (probably due to a combination of misinformation and laziness), while the people who were most at risk were most likely to get the vaccine. And they're most likely to take other precautionary measures as well, like masking and isolation. And still, despite all of the steps they are taking, they are still at greater risk and may still die in the same or greater numbers. It does not mean that the vaccines are ineffective--and indeed, every authoritative source confirms that they are effective-- but it does mean that looking at the non-standardized data will not give you any insight into efficacy. And certain miscreants may try to use that to mislead others into putting their lives at unnecessary risk.

Not actually. The votes are validated after they come in. You can conceivably order ballots in someone else's name-- just like you can show up at multiple polling places and cast a ballot in someone else's name. But the votes aren't taken on faith, they are cross checked and irregularities show up in the data. There's a reason these people get caught. Honestly though, the cost/benefit for committing personal or in-person voter fraud is really unappealing. I mean, how many people are so fanatically devoted to a candidate that they will risk prison time to get that person a couple of extra votes?

Wow, that's a big gamble. Musk is not used to being held accountable for what he says and does, but in a business that relies so heavily on revenue from advertisers who will hold him accountable he will have to censor himself a bit.

Ask yourself, if a person were trying to examine efficacy of mitigation tactics but refused to control for obvious risk factors even when reminded, would that person be a liar or a fool? (Feel free to choose both options if you like.)

If you boil it down he told everyone to go vote because free and fair elections are literally at stake in this election cycle. Literally every American should agree with the content of Biden's speech. It's shocking and damning that there is any counterargument or that such a statement has political "sides" at all. There is a concerted effort to end the Republic as we know it--a concerted and coordinated effort unmake the American experiment. The country that laid the groundwork and served as the model for every modern nation in "the free world" is under real threat from within as people, in this case extremist Republicans, are committed to gaining and retaining power not by serving the voters and earning their support, but by bypassing the voters altogether. And Americans may just be stupid and apathetic enough to let it happen.

This is par for our conversation. I give you authoritative statements. You give me your misinterpretation of supermarket marketing. I give you comprehensive studies, you give me a news clip. You can't navigate the data on your own, or with help. And you won't listen to the people who own the data when they explain it to you. You honestly seem to think you have better understanding and answers than the entirety of the medical and scientific community, despite lacking even a working knowledge of any of these subjects. Dunning Kruger writ large. Or for folks who like the "simple version:" You believe what you believe no matter how many authoritative sources specifically and directly contradict you-and you'll probably die clinging to the same "alternative facts" -- though hopefully long from now and not from COVID. Too bad you're hell-bent on taking other people with you. This is one of those cases in which ignorance is both contagious and deadly. I think we're done here.

That was a one of his better speeches. It's shocking- and damning- that there is "another side" of this argument.

Maybe, but will you have the integrity to admit that you were pushing batshit crazy conspiracy theories that didn't come true? I won't hold my breath. Shame, accountability and integrity are in short supply in some camps.

Yep, quantity means quality. That's how you know McDonalds makes the best burger around. I suppose we'll see if you have any integrity or not shortly. Because there is no plan or attempt by Democrats to suspend the election. That is the craziest shit I've heard in a long time.

You are truly delusional. What will you say when none of this comes to pass? Will come back and own it, or weasel away?