Hodad

I suppose. Can a cretin like you read one? Can you explore the data in other ways. This is your MO, troll. You spout comically outrageous lies (that are usually the exact opposite of the truth) so blatant that everyone can see through them immediately- and then pretend that authoritative sources which prove you definitively wrong are somehow fictional-- then you double down on the stupid. You don't want to argue about policy, you want to say insane shit like "Florida is the coldest state in the country. I have amazing sources. I know some guys there who shivered once. Anyone can make a temperature chart, you liars!" I feel like you must be playing some sort of character. I don't think anyone could survive being that dumb or stay employed being 180 degrees from right on a constant basis.

Nah, I didn't forget anything. It just takes a touch longer to share facts than to spew out bogus claims and random innuendo.

No, it's not interesting. They are the 2 seats left BECAUSE they are having a slow count. Is that not obvious?

Also false. You don't seem to actually know ANYTHING about this voting situation in Arizona which has got you in such a conspiratorial tizzy. The polling locations are determined at the county level, by the Board of Supervisors. Here is the law. 16-411. Designation of election precincts and polling places; voting centers; electioneering; wait times A. The board of supervisors of each county, on or before October 1 of each year preceding the year of a general election, by an order, shall establish a convenient number of election precincts in the county and define the boundaries of the precincts as follows: Reducing the number of locations is also a mixed bag. After the (conservative led) Supreme Court chipped away at the Voting Rights Act back in 2016, Republican areas across the country started cutting back on polling locations in a not-so-subtle effort to suppress minority voting. Maricopa County, which, again, has a Republican Board of Supervisors, cut a shit-ton of polling locations before the 2020 election. But they added a handful back this year and switched to vote centers (vote any any of them instead of your assigned precinct). My point here is not to be YOUR personal fact checker, but to say just spend 2 minutes to educate yourself on something before forming- and especially before sharing- an opinion. Don't just parrot what some asshat says on Twitter or a chain email or something. Literally everything you've complained about and theorized as a potential Democratic election tampering is a) not tampering by either party, but just an imperfect reality, and b) under the control of Republicans anyway.

FYI, Maricopa County DOES vote on paper. The malfunction was that the scanning machines weren't reading the ballots properly. So it takes longer to count by hand. Which also raises suspicion with "you people." You know how Kari Lake proposed to fix it once the Republicans were elected to take control from the Republicans? Hand count everything! Wheeeeee.

I thought that the implication was pretty clear in the way I phrased the question, but for the slower among us, no, it's not Hobbs. As I already said, it's managed at the county level. Elections In Maricopa County The Maricopa County Elections Department, supported by the Board of Supervisors and Recorder's Office, administers city, town, school district, special district, state and federal elections in Maricopa County, the second largest voting jurisdiction in the country. And the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, you ask? Yeah, that's 4 Republicans and one Democrat. And a Republican Senate. And a Republican House. And a Republican Governor. Hey, maybe the Republicans "rigged" the machines just to give you conspiracy kooks something to talk about.

Lol. Some random businessmen that you definitely know. Are they also racist jerks? Reality disagrees

Not really. Voting and counting in AZ is managed at the county level. Remember how Republicans and their sympathizers cried foul and fraud about the voting machines in Maricopa county? Guess which party runs those processes on Maricopa county?

Not in any illegal sense of the word.

Lol, you're at it again. China is closing in on 100% literacy. They are WAY ahead of the US. It's one of the greatest marvels of the last century. Hunger is also relatively low, but it's not a modern marvel. If you laud the power of reading, you should try putting it to work.

Forbes is a fine source. It's an opinion piece reflecting the authors opinion only, but it's informed/expert and pretty reasonable. Fine with me. However, there are about 4 things that should inform your reading. 1. The article is from March 2021, just two months after Biden took office. It's not an analysis of what has happened, but the authors prediction about what may happen. 2. The author predicted that Biden would suppress increases in supply. That didn't happen, as you can see for yourself, domestic production had rebounded to near-record levels. 3. California had a real emissions problem to solve -- one in which the public didn't have to listen to scientists, but could see, smell and taste for themselves. So good on them for solving it. We have a global problem more that needs solving, and efforts will be gradually made to that end, but there's nothing really happening yet to drive prices immediately. And for that matter it's not at all clear that a transition to renewables would have any upward pressure on gas prices. Demand goes down. 4. When the author writes of California, note that he's explicitly taking policy changes over the course of 20 years. Biden had been president for 20 months. This is what I was telling you about the decisions Biden is making today not having any effect on a small time scale. Nothing has happened yet. The point, as before, is that Biden may not be as friendly to the fossil fuel industries as you'd like, but the prices today have almost nothing to do with Biden. You can disapprove of his perspective and speculate about future consequences but you can see that US production today is just fine. It's the rest of the world that is slower to recover.

If that's as close as you can come to conceding the point on the data, so be it. Again, the reality is that there is a VERY loose relationship between domestic production and global prices. You can see in the same data periods of high production and high prices and low production and low prices. We are a big producer, but also one of many big producers in the global pool. So for the US to single-handedly drive down gas prices in the US we would have to create glut of oil on a global scale. You see, the problem, I hope? Our production is already near record level. We don't HAVE the production capacity to create a glut. We couldn't do it even if we wanted to. Not to mention that Biden doesn't have any control over the how much the oil companies produce. He has a long-term agenda for a transition to renewables, but there is zero impact on gas prices today or even in a 10 year window--unless you want to count carbons getting cheaper as more renewables come online. To have any real influence on your gas prices, Biden would have to "nationalize" or assert national control over oil company production and exports and dictate that domestic production be refined and sold locally rather than entering the global market. If he were to do that he would have a lever to move gas prices up and down. But that's not realistic, nor is it something I suspect you want a POTUS empowered to do. I sure don't. Hell, the political right pooped a brick when he released oil from the strategic reserve to help relieve gas prices. Look, you are fully welcome to not worry about climate change and to pledge lifelong allegiance to the hydrocarbon lifestyle. That's an opinion--an unwise one--but still an opinion. But the facts of oil production and the economic realities of a global market are not really debatable. Blaming Biden for today's gas prices is absurd- detached from all fact and reality. Talk to me in a decade, and we can toast how Biden's investment in renewables made gas so much cheaper!

Why are you at-ing me in a thread I've never seen or followed. I didn't even realize there was a separate thread full of your fellow Canucks embarrassing you in the Canada section of the site.

Yes, the monthly stat is extremely misleading- and deliberately so, because it obscures a crystal clear record of vaccine advantage. Congratulations on establishing what we've known since the first months of the pandemic: healthy young people are dramatically less likely to die than decaying oldies. The vaccines clearly save many lives and greatly reduce risk, but that doesn't mean that they can completely invert the rate of death. You should be impressed that the death rates are what they are- further evidence of vaccine efficacy -but instead you use those numbers to sow FUD and death. Again, even if you don't standardize for age, the vaccines reduce risk of death for the COVID infected by 3x-5x. And it would be much higher in many strata if standardized for age. Bullshit. Comparing young unvaccinated people to vaccinated old people is pure, disingenuous sophistry. Yep, and by that busted logic adding seat belts, airbags and other safety features to card didn't result in even a minor drop in the death toll, so they must not work. Please, let everyone in your misinformation email chains know they should stop buckling and go back to cars from the 50s.

Ah, so you've done the math that actually confirms that the unvaccinated are 5x as likely to die, based on actual deaths provided by PHAC, and you still can't be bothered to face that fact. And now you're going back to your silly time boxing. You want to base your total evaluation of efficacy of the vaccines on a short time span, after most of the country is vaccinated, comparing the mortality of the young (and stupid) against the most vulnerable population. Yet, no matter how hard you try to spin, dance and doge you can't escape the FACT that: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. Bullshit. I gave you non-standardized data as a freebie for the full data set and acknowledged it as such multiple times. I explained how (obviously) it favors your case. But it's absurd for you to want to- for the sake of your lies -restrict the data to a time box that compares the mortality rates of lowest risk to those the highest risk without controlling for age/risk. That would be malpractice and misinformation in the extreme. And you're doing it IN SPITE of the clear, inescapable data that shows that the vaccines saved many lives and dramatically reduce the risk of death. I know you're hung up on this, but In terms of efficacy, it literally doesn't matter whether from one day to the next the population was 90% unvaxxed, 50% unvaxxed or 20% unvaxxed. The number or percent of cases of each type at any given moment is irrelevant, because you can still see the relative outcomes. The unvaxxed are overrepresented in the morgue and the vaccinated are more likely to go home to their families. What matters is whether the vaccines improve outcomes for each individual case. And yes, yes they do. It's clearly borne out in the data: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. That is a great methodology for someone who doesn't give a shit about quality data, because, like I've told you a hundred times, it's not controlled for age/risk. You can look at the age distribution of vax statuses and see plainly that the unvaxxed are young while the older the cohorts get the more likely they are to be vaxxed, boosted, boosted again etc. -- The more risk people bear, the more likely they are to mitigate it. So why are you trying to compare the death rates of the young, low-risk unvaccinated to the most vulnerable oldies with the 4x doses? It's clearly bad practice. It' clearly going to give you a dramatically skewed result. It's been explained to you many times. So why do you keep doing it? You are taking deliberate steps to cook the books to support your failed argument, but even with that advantage baked in, there is no denying the actual data: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths Yes, that's 5x more likely to die, even without standardizing for age. You did the math. Face facts. Again, total bullshit. You are deliberately trying to skew the number. But not even all the lying and cheating will help erase the data. The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. Only a total farking tool would think he could get away with statistical malpractice even after you've been caught red handed. It's not an accident anymore, you're doing it deliberately. You KNOW that the vaccines have saved many lives. It's in the data and plainly stated on the same page you cite. You KNOW that the the unvaccinated are 5x more likely to die than the standard vax crowd because you did the math that matches perfectly to the distribution of deaths. I thought you were stupid when you were missing key points after dozens of posts. I no longer think you're stupid, nor that you are missing the point. I do think you're a shameless liar though, and that you are willingly and eagerly and relentlessly putting your political points ahead of the lives of your countrymen. You'd rather help COVID kill Canadians than abandon your talking points. Gross. There is no question- zero -that the vaccines save lives. The data is crystal clear. And there's no way for you to escape it. The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths.

Yeah, this is exactly as I expected. Nobody wants to be accountable for their crazy conspiracy nonsense. And most of you don't learn either. You'll just move on to the next one, like the tent preachers who prepare their flock for the end of the world on an annual basis. It's a shitty way to live, but if you don't put any stock in being a credible person I think the marketplace of ideas will agree with your valuation.

Waiting...

To be fair, he doesn't seem to be generally anti-vax and has lauded the polio vaccine. But he mistakenly believes (or believed?) that the COVID vaccines weren't beneficial. I think/hope that we can all see now that this isn't the case. The data, at least, is clear that they save and have saved a lot of lives.

Yes, it's very easy for the Federal Reserve, which controls the money supply, to create charts about the money supply. They are, after all, the definitive source for that information. You are arguing that people should ignore*actual* data, and instead slurp up opinion pieces. I see you're just tripling down on stupid. How Trumpian. We see you.

It's a good analogy, but its gets really sad at the point at which the analogy falls apart: it's super easy for people to leave the ruined version of Twitter, but considerably more difficult to emigrate from a ruined America. I'm beginning to think we should work out an exchange program. Liberal Americans can move to Canada and the MAGA Canadians can move to the US. Of course, well be bringing the intelligentsia, the tech sector and the entertainment sector with us. They can keep the coal mines and tractor factories.

I am pleased to say that your math looks good! I mean, you could have saved yourself the trouble if you had looked at the distribution chart I posted (or the dozen times I posted the stat in text form). From PHAC again: So everybody agrees that the vaccine works and we're all hunky dory? You'll stop helping COVID kill people?

I misread your scenario. It's a silly scenario, but I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake. One of the things that makes me an evolved human. ? It's a silly scenario because it's not just fictional but the opposite of reality, in which the unvaxxed who catch COVID are more likely to be so seriously ill that they are hospitalized and are also more likely to die. It is a "misleading stat," in that it favors your failed argument. The standard vaccine recipients are the closest we can come to the population mix of the unvaxxed. The unvaxxed are still substantially younger in composition, and even giving you that as a freebie- without even standardizing for risk -the vaccinated group significantly outperforms the unvaccinated group. And don't be stupid. Statistically speaking, it doesn't matter whether they were "forced" to get the vaccine or not. The fact is that they have it, and because of that they are dramatically less likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID. Lucky them. Whereas boosters were recommended and prioritized for those most at risk- the elderly and those with comorbidities. Dude, keep up. The whole point of looking at the standard vaccine crowd is that it's as close compositionally to the unvaxxed crowd as we have. As I've explained several times. It's still substantially older than the unvaxxed crowd, but even with that handicap it outperforms. I'm totally happy to compare the boosted cohorts if you like, but not as a freebie. Standardize for age and let's talk. Compare 70-year-old unvaxxed to 70-year-old triple vaxxed. Report back what you find. Enjoy! A. Yes, there is real world data, from Canada, that shows that individuals who are vaccinated and contract COVID are dramatically less likely to be hospitalized or die. I've posted it many times for you. Those ARE lives saved. Those ARE a reduction in death. B. What you mean to say is that the total death count has remained the same. I'm skeptical of that claim, but whether it has or hasn't is of no relevance to vaccine efficacy. In the exact same way that the constant increase in traffic fatalities does not mean that seatbelts and airbags don't work. <-- you can see how that is a bog stupid argument against seatbelts and airbags, no? Like you get that? Then STOP making the same stupid argument about total death count from COVID. We all want that number to go down- hell, we all want it to be zero- but it's not a good measure of vaccine efficacy. No idea what you're talking about here or why you would write a scenario that way. The vaccinated are less likely to be hospitalized and less likely to die than the unvaccinated. They aren't more likely to be hospitalized and less likely to die. That's some weird invention of yours. You are a liar. I have posted it and linked it over and over again, so I know it's deliberate. The vaxxed results are NOT equal to the unvaxxed. They are substantially better. PHAC The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. 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 ^^The information is just sitting there, waiting for people to adopt it. But you're so damn invested in this fake narrative of ineffective vaccines that you pretend this data doesn't exist. It's farked up. A. That is NOT a control group. The conditions changed year-to-year. There are new variants, different behaviors, new information, different community spread and crap ton of other variables. That's NOT what a control group means. And seriously, WTF? The data "I claim" is NOT behind closed doors. It's literally in the big damn charts that you yourself have posted many times. They count cases. They count deaths. They do simple math. It's all pretty transparent. If you don't believe in that data source, stop trying to use the data and just shake your fist impotently at the sky instead. The data is NOT showing the efficacy among hospitalized cases. It's showing the difference among COVID cases. Full stop. Within those cases, hospitalization is one outcome they are tracking. Death is another outcome they are tracking. Yes, there is probably significant overlap, but it's not conditional. And as I pointed out above, you are making a stupid argument here. A mitigator can prevent deaths- can prevent a lot of deaths -without bringing down the number of total deaths. If you haven't the imagination to conceive of such a scenario just refer to the automotive fatalities example. How many people were driving? How many miles did they travel? How many accidents were there? How bad were the accidents? And you are lying again. The percent of deaths among the seatbelted (vaccinated) is dramatically lower than among those without seatbelts (the unvaccinated). Hey, look. Here it is again: The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. ^^Congrats on sinking to a new low in logic and honestly. Sigh.

Serious question, do you have some condition? This is your claim: "Biden is solely responsible for the massive EXPLOSION of M-1 dollar supply" This is reality: FRED You're utterly disconnected from reality, shouting that night is day and the sky is green. You're not even disagreeing about causes, but about plain, recorded facts. If you have some kind of condition or excuse for this behavior we can make accommodations. But if you're just an obstinate troll you deserve to be roundly mocked.

I'm going to stop you right there. Your pants are on fire. The statistic is NOT survival rate after hospitalization. Hospitalization and death are independent of one another. And yes, Vax 1 is the best choice. You've have to functionally illiterate to look electively join one of the groups with 2x+ mortality. If you'd truly rather stay out of the hospital vaccination is BY FAR the right choice. Again, you'd have to be functionally illiterate to see the data and not see the advantage. The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. But I guess rabid partisans would rather choose a significantly higher risk of death than admit that the vaccines are effective. You are just being stupid here. If the outcomes for individuals are better-- and they are conclusively better in recorded, real world data, the yes, obviously the vaccines worked. That's plainly established in the data. All things being equal, the vaccines will move the death count. But we don't have a control group and reality changes year to year. Whatever the death count was in 2022, we KNOW as a fact that it would have been significantly higher without the vaccines. We know this because we have the data on efficacy at the individual level. Again, the shitty reasoning you are applying is the exact same as looking at traffic fatalities which climb year after year and concluding that seatbelts and airbags don't work. "If they saved lives, why is the fatality count going up?" you'd say. -- But clearly that's not logical reasoning. We know they work. We can see that they reduce the fatality rate of each individual accident. So without those mitigating safety measures we KNOW that the total count would by much higher. Even though the total death counts are (coincidentally) similar year to year we can see mathematically that they would be significantly higher without vaccines, seat belts or airbags. No, you do not have that straight. Vaccines don't "allow" more people to get sick. And the vaccines greatly reducing the chances of serious illness and death aren't theoretical, but rather tracked and recorded facts. Vaccines do reduce transmission, but even if you ignored that entirely (as you have) it should be obvious that saving a lot of lives is a desirable outcome. No, again, this is a misrepresentation. Hospitalization and death are correlated but independent. You can die of COVID at home without ever going to a hospital. -- And if you're unvaccinated that's considerably more likely. ? But beyond that, YES, significantly lowering the number of deaths per case is pretty freaking awesome. Just like lowering the number of fatalities per accident. No. That's both logically stupid and mathematically inaccurate. Being vaccinated decreases your likelihood of being hospitalized and decreases your likelihood of dying. Again (because maybe someday it will get through your thick skull) The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. No. False. Look at the age distributions for both death and vaccination. Children-->40s are already at very low risk of death. and children-->30s make up the bulk of the unvaxxed. So the unvaxxed cohort in total is at much lower risk of death AND STILL managed to be overrepresented in the death outcome. That how effective the vaccines are. The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. It's not the exact same COVID and not the exact same circumstances. It would be mathematically impossible for that to be the case. You literally cannot increase individual survival without also reducing the total number of deaths under the exact same circumstances. -- I think we can acutally agree on that. the problem for you is that we have documented proof that the vaccines increase survival. You're just choosing to disregard the reality of the math rather than admit that conditions were therefore necessarily different. Yes, the unvaccinated have no survival advantage over a tinfoil hat. And unvaccinated people don't have the same outcomes as vaccinated people. So stop saying it. The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths. You don't like that the same number of people are mourning, but as you try to convince people to NOT get vaccinated you are creating MORE mourners. That's the inescapable mathematical truth of the situation. We have the data. Vaccines save lives. And you don't want people to take them. The unvaccinated account for 40.8% of cases but account for 47.6% of hospitalizations and 47.6% deaths. Those with standard vaccination account for 32% of the cases but only 19.9% of hospitalizations and 16.8% of deaths.

You are ignorant. And obstinate. And dishonest.(WWJD?) When presented with actual, numerical records of oil production that absolutely destroy your premise-- that completely unravel your false narrative about Biden's affect on the oil supply and on gas prices-- you still can't admit that you were wrong. It's not even a debatable matter, and you still can't find the decency within yourself to be wrong -- not even as an anonymous poster on the internet. God forbid. Whatever. Wallow in idiocy all you want. You're clearly hopeless. Read whatever stupid right wing crap you want. Don't look at actual facts and figures. Seems that they'll just confuse you anyway.