Dbl- And Triple-Jabbed Deaths Vastly Outnumber Unvaxed Deaths Since Dec 2021.

[West]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

My point is the risk of hospitalization is much less for the vaccinated. That has been established by every CDC in the world but I don't care what you do. Decisions have consequences, vaccinated or not.

Based on skewing statistics...

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, West said:

Based on skewing statistics...

What skewing are you talking about. Point to it and the people who did it.

[DogOnPorch]

All information should be published. "Book burning" is never the answer for unpalatable ideas.

[Infidel Dog]

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Of course they do, you dumb ass. If 100% were vaccinated, 100% of hospital cases would be vaccinated. 

Not sure what you're talking about but according to the CDC Covid cases jumped 1,000 percent in a month during Omicron.

Apparently hospitalizations jumped among the vaccinated as well. That's according to the Prog-approved CDC.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[West]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What skewing are you talking about. Point to it and the people who did it.

It's obvious lol.. there were a large number of people not ending up in hospital before the vaccine. Those same people wouldn't have ended up in the hospital even if they remained unvaccinated. 

Now you use those to make an argument that the vaccine works. It's faulty logic as the same demographic by and large WAS NOT ending up in hospital. Only now they can be used by the vaccine salesman to push a product. 

Why not recogize the obvious? 

Now, like the flu vaccine, there is probably a certain demographic that would benefit from the vaccine. By and large they are the elderly, and end up in the hospital multiple times per year anyway... these are the people who should take precautions, get vaccinated if they choose, etc. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by West

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, West said:

It's obvious lol.. there were a large number of people not ending up in hospital before the vaccine.

The only obvious thing is that the direction you're going in has nothing to do with the claim, the point or the topic of the thread's title. Absolutely nothing at all.

[West]

Just now, eyeball said:

The only obvious thing is that the direction you're going in has nothing to do with the claim, the point or the topic of the thread's title. Absolutely nothing at all.

How ?. 

You point to the "disproportionate" number. The reality is there's disproportionate numbers of healthy vaccinated people who only took it to keep a job despite having very little risk if they caught covid while unvaccinated

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

All information should be published. "Book burning" is never the answer for unpalatable ideas.

You might as well burn them if all you're going to do is change the meaning of the words they contain so they mean what you want.  

[Infidel Dog]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The Epoch Times article was used to substantiate the thread title and it failed.  You said your link to the CDC would suffice. It failed even worse because it said the exact opposite of what the thread title claimed.

Hospitalizations and infections whatever point you're failing to make have nothing to do with the thread title or OP either.

You can change the channel and the topic but not the facts.

 

Buddy, the title of the article said exactly what the CDC graph and data showed. It was posted as a BTW addition to the previous post of mine. That was the limit of my claim and the claim of the title and link I posted. 

I don't know what you're talking about. Sounds like some major back-tracking hiding behind smears. The link proved the title of the article correct and therefore you wrong. You were wrong. Live with it. You were posturing like some superior intellect from on high and that bubble was burst. Too bad. So sad. Stop thinking you can distract from your disgrace by being abstruse.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, eyeball said:

You might as well burn them if all you're going to do is change the meaning of the words they contain so they mean what you want.  

 

Put you down for a yes to book burning?

C'mon...get real. What books do we start with? Perhaps that uncomfortable Animal Farm...?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, West said:

How ?. 

You point to the "disproportionate" number.

Not exactly. I simply pointed out that West Can Man, Epoch and you are ignoring the proportion of vaccinated vs unvaccinated...you do so deliberately, obviously and even unabashadley, for no other reason than to spread misinformation.

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Buddy, the title of the article said exactly what the CDC graph and data showed. It was posted as a BTW addition to the previous post of mine. That was the limit of my claim and the claim of the title and link I posted. 

I don't know what you're talking about. Sounds like some major back-tracking hiding behind smears. The link proved the title of the article correct and therefore you wrong. You were wrong. Live with it. You were posturing like some superior intellect from on high and that bubble was burst. Too bad. So sad. Stop thinking you can distract from your disgrace by being abstruse.

 

You're full of shit you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I don't give a flying fuck about your BTW addition because it has nothing to do with the thread title.  You can keep yapping away about it all day, it won't change the fact the point of the thread was and still is complete bullshit. 

[West]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not exactly. I simply pointed out that West Can Man, Epoch and you are ignoring the proportion of vaccinated vs unvaccinated...you do so deliberately, obviously and even unabashadley, for no other reason than to spread misinformation.

?. 

No my point is that the "proportionality" argument is more complex than you suggest. 

Nobody is spreading misinformation.. Basically what the leftists say when they are wrong

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Put you down for a yes to book burning?

C'mon...get real. What books do we start with? Perhaps that uncomfortable Animal Farm...?

Your dictionary and that's probably all it would take.

We'll crowdsource you a new one.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, West said:

?. 

No my point is that the "proportionality" argument is more complex than you suggest. 

It's actually not complex at all.

Quote

 

Dr. Christopher Labos is a cardiologist and epidemiologist based in Montreal. When looking at the raw data, the explanation behind why more fully vaccinated people were admitted to hospital as opposed to unvaccinated people is simple, he said.

“There are more vaccinated people out there,” he told CTVNews.ca in a phone interview on Wednesday. “When the vaccinated make up 80 to 90 per cent of the population, they will make up more of the hospitalizations.”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/making-sense-of-the-numbers-greater-proportion-of-unvaccinated-are-being-hospitalized-1.5770226

 

 

Quote

Nobody is spreading misinformation.. Basically what the leftists say when they are wrong

Okay call it bullshit then, it's what anyone should call it when faced with bullshitters that are shovelling it.

[Infidel Dog]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're full of shit you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I don't give a flying fuck about your BTW addition because it has nothing to do with the thread title.  You can keep yapping away about it all day, it won't change the fact the point of the thread was and still is complete bullshit. 

You were wrong. Stop your whimpering. You were wrong and I was right. Wah!!! is no excuse.

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

You can peddle statistical theories all you want but until the day they start showing up in scientific journals you'll simply be a crackpot full of hooey.

Scientific journals like NEJM and the Lancet who can just print retracted over their studies and act like nothing happened?

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Moonbox said:

but youtubers and blogs/websites run from Mom's basement are reliable.   ?

The stat that shows 100 triple vaxed people are dying every week in Canada isn't a youtuber/blog website. 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Of course I do, because it's true. Look the guy up that runs mediabiasfactcheck. He's nobody - just an armchair lefty with an opinion about other peoples' opinions.

Your standard of "true" is stuff that conforms to your worldview, and "untrue" is whatever doesn't conveniently fit in.  You're mocking mediabiasfactcheck for armchair opinions on one hand, but then exalt youtubers and vbloggers mouthing off from home as sterling sources.  Yikes.  

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Now as to your critique about the context of Epoch's article on the 1,000 percent increase in cases during Omicron the single data point increase was the point and went to the idea we were discussing of a "pandemic of the vaccinated." In other words - Infections - not hospitalizations or anything else. The radical rise of cases among the vaccinated during Omicron doesn't reflect well on the ability of what they call a "vaccine" to ward off infections during upcoming expected variants.

I think at this point everyone knows that Omicron infections are everywhere and the vaccines don't stop them.  That's not news or what we're talking about here.  Read the thread title again.  

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Although there is context you missed. Cases of the unvaccinated also rose radically according to that particular CDC dataset. Not sure that matters to the point though.

It doesn't.  The vaccines are not showing great efficacy at preventing infection against Omicron and at the same time most places are dropping pandemic restrictions.  The rise in cases is not surprising news.  

Edited February 27, 2022 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Scientific journals like NEJM and the Lancet who can just print retracted over their studies and act like nothing happened?

No. The kind that get the Nobel Committee's attention.

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You were wrong. Stop your whimpering. You were wrong and I was right. Wah!!! is no excuse.

Wrong about what exactly? The deliberateness of the misinformation in the thread's title? No. The deliberateness to ignoring the issue of proportion? No. The issue of deliberately changing the channel from the thread to a BTW article? No.

If wah isn't your excuse for that then what is?

[Infidel Dog]

22 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Your standard of "true" is stuff that conforms to your worldview, and "untrue" is whatever doesn't conveniently fit in.  You're mocking mediabiasfactcheck for armchair opinions on one hand, but then exalt youtubers and vbloggers mouthing off from home as sterling sources.  Yikes.  

Well if you want to get into "what is truth" I worry that might be above your pay grade - so to speak. Let's just say factual then. The claim of Epoch Times as to what was on the CDC website was factual. I was right.

That additional stuff you attempt to smear with is just the usual useless attempt at another child of Prog diversion.

[Infidel Dog]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Wrong about what exactly? The deliberateness of the misinformation in the thread's title? No. The deliberateness to ignoring the issue of proportion? No. The issue of deliberately changing the channel from the thread to a BTW article? No.

If wah isn't your excuse for that then what is?

The title was correct. You were wrong. I was right. Your useless attempt to backtrack by pretending your original claim was something different is fooling nobody. 

Just go find a hanky and blow your nose for Christ sakes. I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Please tone down the personal banter.  Play the ball, not the person. 

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

The title was correct. You were wrong. I was right. Your useless attempt to backtrack by pretending your original claim was something different is fooling nobody.

 

I never made a claim. I simply challenged the claim in the thread title's because the OP deliberately ignores the relevancy of the proportion of vaccinated people to unvaccinated people. So does Epoch and so do you.

You're only fooling yourselves.