'Merica officially becomes Venezuela: Maralogo raided by Biden's goon squad

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, Aristides said:

So that is what Republicans do stand for.

In English? 

[Aristides]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In English? 

The same Republicans also get elected over and over. So what. That isn't the same as engineering a result through the electoral system. Micheals wants to eliminate the Wisconsin election commission and put his own flunkies in charge of elections. The Republican MO has been to make voting more difficult for certain demographics and control the election process.

 

Real banana republic stuff.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Aristides

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The same Republicans also get elected over and over. So what. That isn't the same as engineering a result through the electoral system. Micheals wants to eliminate the Wisconsin election commission and put his own flunkies in charge of elections. The Republican MO has been to make voting more difficult for certain demographics and control the election process.

 

Real banana republic stuff.

Banana republic stuff was the FBI committing crimes to keep the collusion show trial going, and then arresting other people for things that had nothing to do with collusion so that they could offer them reduced sentences for false testimony.  

Then the FBI tried to influence the 2020 election by lying about the legitimacy of Hunter's laptop. They said that it was "Russian disinformation" when they knew that it was all 100% true - they had the laptop for 11 months before they made that claim. They absolutely knew that they were lying.

[Hodad]

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You need meds.

A "vaccine" doesn't boost your immunity by 4%. 

Calling the jab a vax is like using the word sexual assault for a butt-grab and also for being gang-raped by a football team. 

This is pure fiction. Perhaps we should stick to facts.

Quote

1) I'd agree with your argument if the gov't was saying "people over 60 need the vax" but they're saying "people over 5 need the vax". If "everyone needs the vax" according to them, then why should they even care about age stats?

2) They also don't tell us how many people are elderly with serious underlying health issues and are vaxed/unvaxed, which is the only real covid death demographic.

Yes, everyone should vaccinate. The vaccines offer protection to everyone at every age strata, but even those at lower risk of dying themselves should vaccinate in order to curb community spread. Sure, 20-year-old is less to die from COVID, but they sure can spread it. They can surely kill Grandma. The vaccines make them less likely to catch it, less likely to be hospitalized, less likely to die and less likely to infect someone else. They are safe and effective. There is no downside outside of conspiracy nonsense.

 

Quote

 

3) Even if the pseudovax does work a little bit, and I'm ok saying that for the sake of argument, it doesn't perform like a "vaccine". It's help is so minor that it's very possible that things like ivermectin help just as much, but our medical professionals are dead against testing it on scale. The only place we ever learned anything about ivermectin was Uttar Pradesh, where astounding results occurred that have never been replicated anywhere else, but "for some reason which remains unsaid, we will never be allowed to know why Uttar Pradesh got so lucky."

This is, again, pure fiction. Study after study demonstrated the efficacy of the vaccines--especially against the early variants against which they were formulated, though also offering substantial protection against the variations that followed. I know you don't trust medical journals or medical organizations, or health agencies or doctors or pharmacists or researchers or drug companies--basically anyone who can authoritatively speak to the subject-- but what you're saying is just plain wrong.

 

 

Quote

Now that's just extremely stupid. You were actually onto something when you mentioned the oldies, I even coached eyeball to do that so that he wouldn't look so stupid here, but in the population at large, death rates are the same. Same. Same. 86% "vaxed", 86% of our deaths are among the "vaxed". If you don't know what that means then you need to stfu, for real.

Again, false. The death rates are not the same over the whole population for the whole time. They are close within your artificial, post-herd-immunity time box lacking variable control. And without controlling for variables like age you won't even get close to a judgment on efficacy. You know who has all of that data? The same source from which you trust the numbers. Also the same source and page which explains to you that: 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.

Is that sinking in yet? They are not telling you the truth when it's convenient for you and then lying to you when it's inconvenient. They just understand statistics and know their data. Read the notes. It's not magic. They are controlling for age to get at the actual rates and efficacy. 

Quote

And fwiw, triple jabbed and quadruple jabbed people don't seem to do well at all. I'll check out their rates vs the unvaxed next time I run the numbers.  

Were they lying when they said it came from eating a bat? 

Were they lying when they said that it was most likely spread by touching contaminated surfaces?

Were they lying when they said that there was probably no H2H transmission? How serious of a lie was that? Transmissibility is a hallmark of coronaviruses, and there was gain of function research done on this one to make it more transmissible among humans ffs. Why err on the side of danger when you're dealing with a pandemic?

Was it a lie to say that "making the virus more transmissible among humans" doesn't count as "gain of function research"?

Were they being lying fascists when they got their social media attack dogs to go after anyone that said "Wuhan Coronavirus Research Lab"? 

Were they lying when they said in no uncertain terms that taking the vax meant that you wouldn't get infected, or spread the virus? 

Were they lying when they said "It's a pandemic of the unvaccinated"? 

Were they lying when they said that you wouldn't get hospitalized if you were vaxed? Go to ICU? Die? 

Were they lying when they pretended that it was a huge success that the majority of vaxed deaths were among the elderly with underlying conditions, as if that was unique to the vaxed? We knew that was the case back in spring of 2020 when the vax was still 8 months away. 

Dude, those were all lies. Not, "Maybe wrong - maybe lies".  They were "100% known to be lies" lies. Fauci of all people knew exactly what was happening at the Wuhan lab years before you ever heard the word 'covid". Then there was an instantaneous knowledge that HCQ can't possibly work and it kills people, turns them blind, and it's just a scam to get Trump money!" FYI HCQ has been off-patent for about 50 years, it doesn't kill anyone (especially not by comparison to covid jabs) and in order to suffer eye damage yu=ou have to take it for over 5 years continuously. By that time you would have ingested more than a kilogram of the actual HCQ.  

Why did people like Pelosi and DeBlasio encourage the worst possible pandemic behaviours imaginable when covid was first getting here, and yet be deemed to have complete credibility once we were under the gun? How did Cuomo skate after forcing infected people back into care homes, while fully preventing them from being tested beforehand, and then fudge the death stats to make it seem like all the care home deaths were actually hospital deaths? How were the butt-grabbing allegations against him, which weren't new, somehow worse than turning care homes into euthanasia factories? Why did NY never take advantage of the covid hospitals to treat the covid patients? 

This is a massive Gish gallop and most of it appears to be pulled straight out of your ass or some weird chain email. "They" is apparently everyone in the conspiracy that is out to get you. No point getting into any of these tangents when you can't accept the plain facts on efficacy.

Quote

 

Anyways:

1) I would believe them if the death stats bore that out, but they don't.

2) Why didn't you put their FAKE numbers in there? They use numbers like 7 times and 5 times, which clearly MAKE NO SENSE. 

For question 2 that is actually a good question. It's a line I've copied and pasted here multiple times. I didn't even notice that in this particular snip the numbers were omitted. That's my bad. -- They aren't rewriting the page with each new tranche of data. The numbers are populated by formula that is fed as the data comes in. They just changed their methodology (not for the first time) and the code that updates the page isn't in sync with the new data. I linked you one of the archived pages above with the data in place. 

But yes, the statement does make sense because they control for age. One individual may be in a different risk strata than another individual, but both may be many times less likely to die if they are vaccinated. You can take a look at age differentiation here. (This is US data. We don't have the same enviable vaccination rate as Canada, but hopefully you will agree that aside from detectable levels of maple syrup in our blood, Canadians and Americans are biologically indistinct).

 

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Hodad

[WestCanMan]

53 minutes ago, Hodad said:

This is pure fiction. Perhaps we should stick to facts.

Exactly, like the fact that 86% of the people who are dying of covid in Canada in 2022 are multi-vaxed. It doesn't get more simple than that. 

That's not the definition of vaccine that I grew up with. How old are you, 12? 

Quote

Yes, everyone should vaccinate. The vaccines offer protection to everyone at every age strata, but even those at lower risk of dying themselves should vaccinate in order to curb community spread. Sure, 20-year-old is less to die from COVID, but they sure can spread it. They can surely kill Grandma. The vaccines make them less likely to catch it, less likely to be hospitalized, less likely to die and less likely to infect someone else. They are safe and effective. There is no downside outside of conspiracy nonsense.

Wrong, and completely stupid.

The "vax" isn't slowing the spread - at all. Pfizer even acknowledged that they never told anyone it did.

Do you remember when omicron was only in South Africa? FYI only vaxed people could fly back then, yet it only took omicron a couple weeks to be infect large portions of the population everywhere on the planet. 

Seeing as the vax isn't slowing the spread, there's no need to give it to people who aren't at great risk from covid, especially considering the serious nature of the side-effects that we're aware of, plus all the ones we don't even know about yet. 

Quote

They are safe and effective. There is no downside outside of conspiracy nonsense.

No, they are NOT safe, stop saying that. You're obviously not a doctor, you clearly haven't even taken HS biology.  

Myocarditis is no joke. Young people having strokes is no joke. The effect that the jab is having on women's menstrual cycles is no joke:

Quote

https://immunizebc.ca › ask-us › questions › can-covid-...

 

 

 

Getting COVID-19 itself can impact the menstrual cycle with more than 35% of women and persons [lol] who get COVID-19 noting changes in their menstrual cycle after infection.

You know it's a leftist source when they have to include people other than women who have menstrual cycles. 

Why should we just rush to assume that the effect covid is having on women's menstrual cycles is probably fine?

How is it that we can just always rush to assume that nothing else works and the side-effects on kids is ok and the side-effects for women's fertility are ok? 

Quote

This is, again, pure fiction. Study after study demonstrated the efficacy of the vaccines--especially against the early variants against which they were formulated, though also offering substantial protection against the variations that followed. I know you don't trust medical journals or medical organizations, or health agencies or doctors or pharmacists or researchers or drug companies--basically anyone who can authoritatively speak to the subject-- but what you're saying is just plain wrong.

YAY STUDIES! Let's get that Trump vax out here in the real world and kick the tar out of covid, studies!!!! Oh wait, we tried that. It didn't work even a teeny, tiny bit. 

Sorry but it's not pure fiction at all. What you're saying is just pure comedy, as usual. 

You're talking about closed-door studies that showed something that never materialized anywhere in the real world.

I'm talking about a massive population of real-world people whose covid numbers fell off the map, even in relation to their neighbours in India. Mass "vaccinations" have never achieved anything like that.

Why is it that when we see something that actually works we don't copy it? Why is the criticism of this just "no causal link"? Or "in our studies it didn't work." 

You wanna know where we found that covid vaccines weren't a real thing? In the real world, where 86% of Canadians who die of covid are multi-vaxed. 

 

Take it if you want, but the side-effects are extremely serious, the benefits are marginal, and healthy people under 50 don't need it anyways. 

The whole argument that "my vaccines work but I'll die if I come close to an unvaccinated person" is just more anti-science claptrap. 

It might be a thing if the "vax" was protecting little kids, who can't usually get vaxed before they're 2, but it's protecting people who are already pumped up on 3-4 doses now. 

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Banana republic stuff was the FBI committing crimes to keep the collusion show trial going, and then arresting other people for things that had nothing to do with collusion so that they could offer them reduced sentences for false testimony.  

Then the FBI tried to influence the 2020 election by lying about the legitimacy of Hunter's laptop. They said that it was "Russian disinformation" when they knew that it was all 100% true - they had the laptop for 11 months before they made that claim. They absolutely knew that they were lying.

Anything that holds the Trump Cult responsible for their actions is a conspiracy to you guys. You use it to justify anything.

[DogOnPorch]

As opposed to the 'Biden Cult'...lol.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Aristides said:

Anything that holds the Trump Cult responsible for their actions is a conspiracy to you guys. You use it to justify anything.

Crimes aristedes. Known, proven, confessed-to crimes. By the KGB. They blatantly lied to America about the laptop, right at the national level. They didn't lie to one dude, they lied to the whole country. 

A FISA court judge even said that the FBI's investigation was so dodgy that it cast a shroud of doubt over everything they did prior. Is that conspiratorial, or is that appalling? 

You're whacked, dude. It's weird that you're defending crimes at the highest level of the FBI. 

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Crimes aristedes. Known, proven, confessed-to crimes. By the KGB. They blatantly lied to America about the laptop, right at the national level. They didn't lie to one dude, they lied to the whole country. 

A FISA court judge even said that the FBI's investigation was so dodgy that it cast a shroud of doubt over everything they did prior. Is that conspiratorial, or is that appalling? 

You're whacked, dude. It's weird that you're defending crimes at the highest level of the FBI. 

You will defend anything the Trump Cult does. 

[DogOnPorch]

Much like you do with your Biden Cult.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

You will defend anything the Trump Cult does. 

Like the Jan 6th holocaust? 

What did I defend aristedes? What actual crime did I defend? 

Why are you pretending that the FBI didn't commit serious crimes of an extremely political nature? 

[Hodad]

50 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Exactly, like the fact that 86% of the people who are dying of covid in Canada in 2022 are multi-vaxed. It doesn't get more simple than that. 

It's not simple. It's simplistic. I've explained it to you. The source you trust for numbers has explained it to you. Anyone else can explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you. 

Quote

That's not the definition of vaccine that I grew up with. How old are you, 12? 

You don't have a definition. Nor are you qualified to define it. Stop embarrassing yourself and leave that definition to the medical community (or supermarkets) whatever "authoritative" source you put your faith in. In this case, they all agree.

Quote

Wrong, and completely stupid.

The "vax" isn't slowing the spread - at all. Pfizer even acknowledged that they never told anyone it did.

Do you remember when omicron was only in South Africa? FYI only vaxed people could fly back then, yet it only took omicron a couple weeks to be infect large portions of the population everywhere on the planet. 

Seeing as the vax isn't slowing the spread, there's no need to give it to people who aren't at great risk from covid, especially considering the serious nature of the side-effects that we're aware of, plus all the ones we don't even know about yet. 

Pfizer didn't "acknowledge" anything. The lack of testing on transmission was well known and established before the first public vaccine rollouts, but if you can reduce the viral load and prevent or reduce symptoms like coughing and sneezing you will, of course, reduce transmission. And, of course, the vaccines did reduce transmission.

You realize that you're not linking to things when you underline them, right? That you've cited no evidence to support your erroneous claims. I know you think more highly of your personal opinions that those of all the medical authorities on the planet, but even with those delusions one would think it prudent to provide evidence if you want to contradict medical authorities like the:

CDC

Quote

Vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others, although at much lower rates than unvaccinated people. The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people are higher where community transmission of the virus is widespread.

 

NEJM

Quote

andomized, controlled trials^1-3 and real-world population studies^4,5 have shown that vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), have prevented infection and adverse outcomes from several SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants.^6-8 Vaccination may also prevent onward transmission both by reducing symptomatic infections and asymptomatic infections (and therefore the number of infectious persons) and by reducing onward spread from persons who have become infected despite vaccination.

BMJ

Quote

A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time.

A subsequent study,4 conducted later in the course of the pandemic when the delta variant was dominant, showed vaccines had a less pronounced effect on denting onward transmission, but were still effective.

 

 

 

Quote

No, they are NOT safe, stop saying that. You're obviously not a doctor, you clearly haven't even taken HS biology.  

Myocarditis is no joke. Young people having strokes is no joke. The effect that the jab is having on women's menstrual cycles is no joke:

You know it's a leftist source when they have to include people other than women who have menstrual cycles. 

Why should we just rush to assume that the effect covid is having on women's menstrual cycles is probably fine?

How is it that we can just always rush to assume that nothing else works and the side-effects on kids is ok and the side-effects for women's fertility are ok? 

No, Jenny McCarthy, they're not "jokes." But they are also not serious side effects. The vaccines are safe and effective and every medical body in the world backs that up. That's why we're still using them. 

You've seriously got to stop getting your medical advice from YouTube videos and hack sites. It's exhausting.

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's not simple. It's simplistic. I've explained it to you. The source you trust for numbers has explained it to you. Anyone else can explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you. 

The problem is that you can't understand anything. All you do is regurgitate propaganda.

I've had to hold your hand through every stage of this.

At first you were obsessed by the fact that there were so many unvaxed deaths, you didn't understand how many of them were from spring of 2021, when 38M Canadians were unvaxed and it was still a "novel virus". Then you didn't understand that I was talking about the deaths between specific dates. Then you tried your "base rate fallacy" nonsense because you don't understand proportions.

Now you're correctly thinking about the fact that the age of the vaxed population is heavily weighted towards "vaxed", which is more at risk (I was the one who coached you and eyeball to look at that stat), which makes at least a small case for the vax, but FYI age isn't the main consideration - it's underlying health conditions. Even children and young adults can die of covid if they have stage 4 cancer, etc. 

Almost everyone who dies of covid is both elderly and has underlying health issues. And in that crowd, in the unhealthiest of the unhealthy, you'll find 80 yr olds with cancer, emphysema, mesothelioma, etc. People who know they're dying and they're in misery, and they don't want a vax. It's actually a joke that people like that are lumped into the "died of covid" category, but here we are, freaking out about a "pandemic" that's not really what it's made out to be.

So, Hodad, without knowing how many unvaxed people who died were in the "beyond the point of caring about a vax" category, we can't assign a "real world success rate" to the vaccine because the most important info is unknown.

Quote

You don't have a definition. Nor are you qualified to define it.

Luckily for us, I didn't have to define vaccine, because we all know the definition. We grew up with it.

Quote

a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

It doesn't say "A substance which provides barely perceptible levels of protection against disease."

Quote

In this case, they all agree.

The people who "all agreed" "all profited". They also "all agreed" that we "need" to take the seasonal flu shot and that "we needed to take a swine flu vax" and they "all agreed" that we needed an avian flu vax, mers vax, bird flu vax, H1n1 vax, etc, etc, etc. They were "all wrong". 

This was never about science. It was always about pushing a vax. They tried and tried and tried and then when covid came they recorded people as "covid deaths" when they were already in palliative care with stage 4 cancer. How legit is that? 

When you and I think about a "covid death" we think about a healthy dude who caught a cold and died, but guess what? For all intents and purposes there are none of those. 

It'n not like cancer, where "Bob was so healthy but he got cancer and died", it's like "Bob was walking on the edge of his grave and then covid nudged him". That's covid. Healthy people are protected by virtue of being healthy.

Healthy men don't need the myocarditis vax. 

Healthy women don't need the menstruation-altering vax. 

There's a possibility that elderly people with underlying health conditions can benefit from the vax, and I have good news for them - they can try it.

The CDC said this?

Quote

Vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others, although at much lower rates than unvaccinated people. The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people are higher where community transmission of the virus is widespread.

That's weird, because they also said this, right on TV:

"Can't carry the virus, don't get sick...."

Their "clinical trials and the real world data showed it" Hodad. I repeat: Their "clinical trials and the real world data showed it".

Guess what it actually showed? Honestly, take an effing guess Hodad, because that's all you have, for real dude. 

86% of people are multi-vaxed, and 86% of covid deaths are among the multi-vaxed, and we don't know what percent of people are sick enough with serious underlying health conditions that they're at risk of dying from covid who are vaxed. 

The NEJM put out a hasty "study" which came out and said unequivocally that HCQ didn't work, then they had to retract it because it was bullshit. 

Quote

No, Jenny McCarthy, they're not "jokes." But they are also not serious side effects.

Grow up you GD child. They're not jokes because they're extremely serious. Giving a child "medicine" that they don't need, which won't benefit them in any way, which can cause that level of harm is atrocious. And there could still be long-tern effects which we have no clue about. 

Women's reproductive ability and the hearts of healthy children aren't up for grabs. 

There was a drug that was given out to pregnant women for over twenty years which was later found to have trans-generational side-effects. We've just been taking this crap for 1.5 years and what we're seeing is not encouraging. 

[Hodad]

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The problem is that you can't understand anything. All you do is regurgitate propaganda.

I've had to hold your hand through every stage of this.

At first you were obsessed by the fact that there were so many unvaxed deaths, you didn't understand how many of them were from spring of 2021, when 38M Canadians were unvaxed and it was still a "novel virus". Then you didn't understand that I was talking about the deaths between specific dates. Then you tried your "base rate fallacy" nonsense because you don't understand proportions.

Now you're correctly thinking about the fact that the age of the vaxed population is heavily weighted towards "vaxed", which is more at risk (I was the one who coached you and eyeball to look at that stat), which makes at least a small case for the vax, but FYI age isn't the main consideration - it's underlying health conditions. Even children and young adults can die of covid if they have stage 4 cancer, etc. 

Almost everyone who dies of covid is both elderly and has underlying health issues. And in that crowd, in the unhealthiest of the unhealthy, you'll find 80 yr olds with cancer, emphysema, mesothelioma, etc. People who know they're dying and they're in misery, and they don't want a vax. It's actually a joke that people like that are lumped into the "died of covid" category, but here we are, freaking out about a "pandemic" that's not really what it's made out to be.

So, Hodad, without knowing how many unvaxed people who died were in the "beyond the point of caring about a vax" category, we can't assign a "real world success rate" to the vaccine because the most important info is unknown.

Luckily for us, I didn't have to define vaccine, because we all know the definition. We grew up with it.

It doesn't say "A substance which provides barely perceptible levels of protection against disease."

The people who "all agreed" "all profited". They also "all agreed" that we "need" to take the seasonal flu shot and that "we needed to take a swine flu vax" and they "all agreed" that we needed an avian flu vax, mers vax, bird flu vax, H1n1 vax, etc, etc, etc. They were "all wrong". 

This was never about science. It was always about pushing a vax. They tried and tried and tried and then when covid came they recorded people as "covid deaths" when they were already in palliative care with stage 4 cancer. How legit is that? 

When you and I think about a "covid death" we think about a healthy dude who caught a cold and died, but guess what? For all intents and purposes there are none of those. 

It'n not like cancer, where "Bob was so healthy but he got cancer and died", it's like "Bob was walking on the edge of his grave and then covid nudged him". That's covid. Healthy people are protected by virtue of being healthy.

Healthy men don't need the myocarditis vax. 

Healthy women don't need the menstruation-altering vax. 

There's a possibility that elderly people with underlying health conditions can benefit from the vax, and I have good news for them - they can try it.

The CDC said this?

That's weird, because they also said this, right on TV:

"Can't carry the virus, don't get sick...."

Their "clinical trials and the real world data showed it" Hodad. I repeat: Their "clinical trials and the real world data showed it".

Guess what it actually showed? Honestly, take an effing guess Hodad, because that's all you have, for real dude. 

86% of people are multi-vaxed, and 86% of covid deaths are among the multi-vaxed, and we don't know what percent of people are sick enough with serious underlying health conditions that they're at risk of dying from covid who are vaxed. 

The NEJM put out a hasty "study" which came out and said unequivocally that HCQ didn't work, then they had to retract it because it was bullshit. 

Grow up you GD child. They're not jokes because they're extremely serious. Giving a child "medicine" that they don't need, which won't benefit them in any way, which can cause that level of harm is atrocious. And there could still be long-tern effects which we have no clue about. 

Women's reproductive ability and the hearts of healthy children aren't up for grabs. 

There was a drug that was given out to pregnant women for over twenty years which was later found to have trans-generational side-effects. We've just been taking this crap for 1.5 years and what we're seeing is not encouraging. 

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.

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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.

My stats are beating up your propaganda again.

Look:

While remembering that 86% of us are vaxed and 86% of our covid deaths come from the vaxed, look at this chart that shows how many people died of covid each month since the beginning of the pandemic. 

Does it look like covid deaths plummeted after the vax rollout? I sure as F don't see that.....

Look at Jan of '21 compared to January of '22. Deaths are actually UP in Jan of 2022, despite massive vaccination stats, and the vaxed death rate matched the unvaxed death rate - 86% to 86%.

Look at April and May of '21 vs '22. Deaths are actually up in 2022, and the vaxed death rate matched the unvaxed death rate again.

Ask yourself: if 0% of us were vaxxed against polio, TB, smallpox etc, in 2021, and 86% of us were vaxed against those things in 2022, would you expect more deaths in 2021 or 2022? 

Would you expect the same number of deaths/hundred people in both the vaxed and unvaxed groups? 

[WestCanMan]

@Hodad You're right, I think we're done here.

?

[Hodad]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

My stats are beating up your propaganda again.

Look:

While remembering that 86% of us are vaxed and 86% of our covid deaths come from the vaxed, look at this chart that shows how many people died of covid each month since the beginning of the pandemic. 

Does it look like covid deaths plummeted after the vax rollout? I sure as F don't see that.....

Look at Jan of '21 compared to January of '22. Deaths are actually UP in Jan of 2022, despite massive vaccination stats, and the vaxed death rate matched the unvaxed death rate - 86% to 86%.

Look at April and May of '21 vs '22. Deaths are actually up in 2022, and the vaxed death rate matched the unvaxed death rate again.

Ask yourself: if 0% of us were vaxxed against polio, TB, smallpox etc, in 2021, and 86% of us were vaxed against those things in 2022, would you expect more deaths in 2021 or 2022? 

Would you expect the same number of deaths/hundred people in both the vaxed and unvaxed groups? 

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.)

Edited November 3, 2022 by Hodad

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

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.)

Ask yourself:

1) if 85% of Canadians were safely given an actual vaccine for a pandemic in one year, would the number of deaths in that country go up the next year, stay the same, or go down?

2) In any event, would the number of pandemic deaths per 100 people among the vaxed be equal to that of the unvaxed?

3) Are we seeing the kinds of results from the covid "vax" that would indicate that we need to be vaxing children, and forcing young adults to vax, while knowing that they don't need vaccine-level protection from covid and what types of side-effects exist, and the possibly that more side-effects could be discovered down the road? 

 

I guess I'd have different answers from a renowned vaxologist [new thing] like yourself, because we have completely different definitions of the word "vaccine", or who needs protection, and what "extremely serious side-effects" means. 

 

My answers would be:

1) The death rate would go down substantially if 85% of us were vaxed. In fact, some level of herd immunity would make it hard for the pandemic to spread due to the limited number of hosts who could carry it, so even the unvaccinated could benefit greatly from mass-vaxxing.

If vaxing 85% of the population showed no dramatic results then I'd venture to say that what we have doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a "vaccine".

2) The death rate among the vaccinated would be substantially lower. In fact, despite the fact that there were almost 6 times as many vaccinated people, the unvaccinated could be expected to have similar or even a higher number of deaths. Ideally there would be almost no deaths among the vaxed, as is the case with polio. 

3) Points to ponder:

-The number of people dying in Canada didn't go down when we hit our "vaccination" goals.

-The number of vaccinated people dying is still directly proportional to the number of people vaxxed.

-The number of cases isn't affected by vax rates.

-We've known since the very beginning of the pandemic that healthy young people aren't sorely affected by the virus, and its side-effects are serious enough to warrant strong caution.

The bottom line is that I don't see any evidence at all that vaxing children and force-vaxing young adults provides the kind of value that outweighs the risk involved. 

 

Here's the transcript from when I interviewed one "Perfesser Hobab" from Dunning Kruger University's Faculty of Scrotum Waxing. I asked him the above questions, and this was his humble reply:

1) The overall number of deaths would indubedably remain the same, or could even increase, because, although vaccines really slow the spread and limit the severity of infection by a factor of 5 to 7 times, mitigating factors and risk factors would also have to be taken into account, as if it were a lab scenario. If you don't understand this, or pretend not to understand this, you're a liar or a fool, and I think we're done here.

2) We would expect that death rates per hundred people, among the vaxed and unvaxed, would be nearly identical, for reasons that unvaccinated racists and misogynists would never understand. 

3) What difference does it make if there's no real-world evidence that the vax is working? The CDC and NEJM have told us many times that it prevents infection and hospitalization, and that's proof that it actually is working. Don't be fooled by all the dead bodies - they do nothing but lie. Get it? Ahahahaaa.

Just because the same number of people are dying overall, and the number of vaxed deaths is still directly proportional to the number of vaxed people, doesn't mean that we should stop forcing the people who don't need it to take it.

The known side-effects, such as myocarditis and large changes in the female reproductive system, are no big deal in my expert opinion. Especially when compared to all the lives which are theoretically being saved, according to the most recent and highly inaccurate guesstimates by the CDC, who have been wildly wrong at every previous stage of the pandemic. I'm also 100% certain that there won't be any more side-effects and I know all this from my years of being wrong in other threads.

Now, can we get down to business? You're overdue for your monthly, Wes. You gotta keep that scrotum looking FABULooouuussss!

Edited November 3, 2022 by WestCanMan

[Hodad]

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Ask yourself:

1) if 85% of Canadians were safely given an actual vaccine for a pandemic in one year, would the number of deaths in that country go up the next year, stay the same, or go down?

2) In any event, would the number of pandemic deaths per 100 people among the vaxed be equal to that of the unvaxed?

3) Are we seeing the kinds of results from the covid "vax" that would indicate that we need to be vaxing children, and forcing young adults to vax, while knowing that they don't need vaccine-level protection from covid and what types of side-effects exist, and the possibly that more side-effects could be discovered down the road? 

 

I guess I'd have different answers from a renowned vaxologist [new thing] like yourself, because we have completely different definitions of the word "vaccine", or who needs protection, and what "extremely serious side-effects" means. 

 

My answers would be:

1) The death rate would go down substantially if 85% of us were vaxed. In fact, some level of herd immunity would make it hard for the pandemic to spread due to the limited number of hosts who could carry it, so even the unvaccinated could benefit greatly from mass-vaxxing.

If vaxing 85% of the population showed no dramatic results then I'd venture to say that what we have doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a "vaccine".

2) The death rate among the vaccinated would be substantially lower. In fact, despite the fact that there were almost 6 times as many vaccinated people, the unvaccinated could be expected to have similar or even a higher number of deaths. Ideally there would be almost no deaths among the vaxed, as is the case with polio. 

3) Points to ponder:

-The number of people dying in Canada didn't go down when we hit our "vaccination" goals.

-The number of vaccinated people dying is still directly proportional to the number of people vaxxed.

-The number of cases isn't affected by vax rates.

-We've known since the very beginning of the pandemic that healthy young people aren't sorely affected by the virus, and its side-effects are serious enough to warrant strong caution.

The bottom line is that I don't see any evidence at all that vaxing children and force-vaxing young adults provides the kind of value that outweighs the risk involved. 

 

Here's the transcript from when I interviewed one "Perfesser Hobab" from Dunning Kruger University's Faculty of Scrotum Waxing. I asked him the above questions, and this was his humble reply:

1) The overall number of deaths would indubedably remain the same, or could even increase, because, although vaccines really slow the spread and limit the severity of infection by a factor of 5 to 7 times, mitigating factors and risk factors would also have to be taken into account, as if it were a lab scenario. If you don't understand this, or pretend not to understand this, you're a liar or a fool, and I think we're done here.

2) We would expect that death rates per hundred people, among the vaxed and unvaxed, would be nearly identical, for reasons that unvaccinated racists and misogynists would never understand. 

3) What difference does it make if there's no real-world evidence that the vax is working? The CDC and NEJM have told us many times that it prevents infection and hospitalization, and that's proof that it actually is working. Don't be fooled by all the dead bodies - they do nothing but lie. Get it? Ahahahaaa.

Just because the same number of people are dying overall, and the number of vaxed deaths is still directly proportional to the number of vaxed people, doesn't mean that we should stop forcing the people who don't need it to take it.

The known side-effects, such as myocarditis and large changes in the female reproductive system, are no big deal in my expert opinion. Especially when compared to all the lives which are theoretically being saved, according to the most recent and highly inaccurate guesstimates by the CDC, who have been wildly wrong at every previous stage of the pandemic. I'm also 100% certain that there won't be any more side-effects and I know all this from my years of being wrong in other threads.

Now, can we get down to business? You're overdue for your monthly, Wes. You gotta keep that scrotum looking FABULooouuussss!

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.

1. 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. 
2. 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!" 
3. 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. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

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. 

I stated your opinions quite accurately.

You still feel like the percentage of multi-jabbed deaths being directly proportional to the percentage of multi-jabbed people is normal for a vaccine. I don't.

You feel like even though covid deaths in this country didn't drop at all after 85% of us were vaccinated, they're still "vaccines" and they're still "working as they should".

You think that the side-effects are quite worth the risk for the incredible gains that we get from the covid shots, and I would agree if we had a noticeably smaller death toll, but just as many people died in 2022 when 85% of us were vaxed as back in 2021 when no one was vaxed. What was the actual gain, in terms of lives save from all those "vaccinations" Hodad?

I'm going by the stats for an entire country, you're going by what the CDC and Fauci say. I get that you believe things like this:

Can you show me stat that proves Wolenski right? The stat that shows how there's a vaccine that people can take which will prevent them from getting covid, or spreading it? 

Edited November 3, 2022 by WestCanMan

[Hodad]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I stated your opinions quite accurately.

You still feel like the percentage of multi-jabbed deaths being directly proportional to the percentage of multi-jabbed people is normal for a vaccine. I don't.

You feel like even though covid deaths in this country didn't drop at all after 85% of us were vaccinated, they're still "vaccines" and they're still "working as they should".

You think that the side-effects are quite worth the risk for the incredible gains that we get from the covid shots, and I would agree if we had a noticeably smaller death toll, but just as many people died in 2022 when 85% of us were vaxed as back in 2021 when no one was vaxed. What was the actual gain, in terms of lives save from all those "vaccinations" Hodad?

I'm going by the stats for an entire country, you're going by what the CDC and Fauci say. I get that you believe things like this:

 

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.

 

Quote

Can you show me stat that proves Wolenski right? The stat that shows how there's a vaccine that people can take which will prevent them from getting covid, or spreading it? 

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."

 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I can tell you about calculating rates and standardizing for additional variables.

There's no need for any of that, because all of the exact same people who survived the 2020/21 flu season were involved in the 2021/22 season. 

The only difference is that 85% of them were vaccinated the second time around, so their chances of adverse effects were all theoretically 5x lower, according to you and the people you believe. 

You can't find a better control group than "the exact same people who lived through the exact same shit one year ago".

If the vax increased their chances of survival by 80% that should be visible in this graph:

The second peak on that graph is Dec/Jan 2020. "Flu season". The first Canadians were vaxed on Dec 14, which is right inside of it. 

The first Canadians received their second dose in Feb/March of 2021, right were the dip is to the right. 

Fully protected people (two doses plus the second waiting period) started to outnumber unvaccinated people in July of 2021, almost right in the middle of that graph, where it's quite low.

For all intents and purposes, that peak in Dec/Jan 2020/21 represents "all Canadians unvaxed", and the next Dec/Jan peak represents "15% unvaxed and 85% multi-vaxed". 

Is it your opinion that Canadians did so much better in the second flu season (dec/Jan)? 2022 vs 2021? 

Remember, it's all the same people, the only difference is that in 2022 "85% of Canadians had their chances of survival increased by 85%" - according to you and your valued, respected sources. 

So can you explain to me how the outcomes in 2022 don't look any better?

As I explained to eyeball, if 85% of the pop had their chance of survival increased by 80%, the number of deaths in the second flu season should have been about 32% of what they were in the first one. 

If you look at that second peak and say "most of those deaths were among the unvaxed" you'd be quite wrong. The percent of covid deaths among the vaxed is equal to the number of multi-vaxed Canadians. 

You always lose Hodad, but I'll admit I've had to up my game a bit to make you look like a fool. 

[Hodad]

45 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There's no need for any of that, because all of the exact same people who survived the 2020/21 flu season were involved in the 2021/22 season. 

The only difference is that 85% of them were vaccinated the second time around, so their chances of adverse effects were all theoretically 5x lower, according to you and the people you believe. 

You can't find a better control group than "the exact same people who lived through the exact same shit one year ago".

If the vax increased their chances of survival by 80% that should be visible in this graph:

The second peak on that graph is Dec/Jan 2020. "Flu season". The first Canadians were vaxed on Dec 14, which is right inside of it. 

The first Canadians received their second dose in Feb/March of 2021, right were the dip is to the right. 

Fully protected people (two doses plus the second waiting period) started to outnumber unvaccinated people in July of 2021, almost right in the middle of that graph, where it's quite low.

For all intents and purposes, that peak in Dec/Jan 2020/21 represents "all Canadians unvaxed", and the next Dec/Jan peak represents "15% unvaxed and 85% multi-vaxed". 

Is it your opinion that Canadians did so much better in the second flu season (dec/Jan)? 2022 vs 2021? 

Remember, it's all the same people, the only difference is that in 2022 "85% of Canadians had their chances of survival increased by 85%" - according to you and your valued, respected sources. 

So can you explain to me how the outcomes in 2022 don't look any better?

As I explained to eyeball, if 85% of the pop had their chance of survival increased by 80%, the number of deaths in the second flu season should have been about 32% of what they were in the first one. 

If you look at that second peak and say "most of those deaths were among the unvaxed" you'd be quite wrong. The percent of covid deaths among the vaxed is equal to the number of multi-vaxed Canadians. 

You always lose Hodad, but I'll admit I've had to up my game a bit to make you look like a fool. 

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.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

The premise here is incorrect to start with.

You're like a drowning man clutching at straws now, it's pathetic.

Quote

The right half of the chart is indeed better, vertically and horizontally.

1) No, it's not better at all. The spikes are a bit narrower, also far taller. Also, for some reason covid never took time off this summer - there were a surprisingly high number of deaths in June and July.

Visually it's about equal to my eye, if it's down it's just slightly. There's no chance that it's down to 32% of what it was, so you can stop repeating your "5x fewer...." stat now - it's clearly disproven.

Quote

Spikes are smaller in bothe dimensions.

Clearly wrong. I'm pretty sure everyone can see that - even eyeball. 

Quote

The big spike post vax in Jan 2022 is when Omicron landed.

Who cares about omicron? When they gave you the vax they didn't say "It won't do sweet FA 1 month from now."

Do you know there's never been a time when the vax "worked"? After the big rollout, and the ICUs instantly filled up with vaxed people, it was "Delta threw us a change up".

Every successive boost it's some other excuse. Last month it was "The dog ate my research right before we mixed the last batch."  

The vaccine just can't catch a break, hey?

Quote

I don't think Flu season is likely meaningful in a COVID count except for the fact that they spread under the same conditions.

Are you honestly telling me that after all this time you still don't see a flu season pattern going on there? Why did other people predict something in advance that you can't see with the benefit of two years of hindsight?

Quote

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. 

It's a "real-world control group" perfesser.

A control group is just a group of people who do the exact same things as the test group, only they get a Pflacebo just in case there's really anything to the placebo effect. 

We actually have a control group made up of 85% of our population. 

All of those people got through the first flu season unvaxed, and then according to you they had a, 85% better chance of surviving flu season 2. They did no better than before, and they did no better than the unvaxed.

Why does that keep happening? It's the greatest series of coincidences in the history of the world I tell you! 

Quote

And the "people I believe" are the same people you believe,

No, I don't believe the people who said "The vaccine will prevent you from getting covid and you can't pass it on to anyone else" and I don't believe the latest BS about "5x less likely to be hospitalized."

I believe "5x less likely to score over 80 on an IQ test", that's about it.

Quote

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,

You think I was hoping that the vax would fail so that we could enjoy another 2 years of covid? 

I cheered for HCQ, ivermectin, Remdesivir (big Pharma), vitamins and zinc, and every other thing that came along. For some reason a lot of people were very choosy about the things that they wished success upon. So weird.

Quote

and you dismiss the exact same data when it shows you to be incorrect. That's nuts. 

There's no data showing me to be incorrect, aside from the data inside big pharma's secret labs. The covid jabs hit the ground like a lead ballon and still haven't gotten off the ground.

Quote

^^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.

Jesus Christ man, do you even have a f'ing clue what you're looking at?

If you go back to the site you got that from, and read the line above where you cropped that photo, you'll see it even says "Since the start of the vaccination campaign on Dec 14 2020". How many quadruple vaxed people were there in Dec of 2020 perfesser? Zero. And zero in 2021. And zero up until summer of 2022. That's why there are almost no quadruple vaxed deaths by comparison.

Now click on the box that says "distribution" and change it to "deaths". You'll see it says 10,800 deaths among the unvaxed, that's the total since day 1 of vaxing. I've kept a running total this whole time. I know that stat well. 

FYI the number of quadruple deaths is already 1,031. That's a lot considering how few people are 4xers and for how long. 

There are already 5,209 3xers dead from covid, and they haven't been around long either. They just started getting a 3rd dose partway into the last flu season. 

When they put stats there that say things like "Only 4.5% of covid deaths are among the quadruple-vaxed" it's the statistical equivalent of a bag-over-the-head punch in the face for the mathematically challenged. It's only there to fool excessively stupid people who just want to look at a shiny stat, get their cuppa confirmation bias to runneth over, and then F-off to tell the world about the emperor's new vaxes. It's perfect for CTV and CBC. Their dolt viewers love it. 

That's why @BeaverFever clicked like on your post. He believes crap like that when he sees it too. 

The stat that you quoted as "proof" is the exact same thing as if I counted points by NBA players in the new era, starting on Michael Jordan's second last season, and then I say "OMG look how many points LeBron James has in his career compared to Jordan! Jordan only has 4.5% of what LeBron has!" 

Look below for a more fleshed out version of the stats that you're trying to bedazzle the world with. The part about "Dec 14" is the second line. You had the "distribution" box open, which is the most meaningless stat ever cited, I have the cumulative death total selected in this photo. 

You're a total imposter Hodad. Stop trying to tell us what the stats say. It's like a little kid trying to impress people by saying "E=mc2" or reciting pi to 4 decimal places. 

Edited November 4, 2022 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

@Hodad

@eyeball

There are 1,031 quadruple-vaxed deaths.

Look how many 4xers there are, and how long they've been around for. (They're the tiny little light-blue line at the bottom right of the chart)

There are only 10x as many unvaxed, and there were 38M unvaxed for a good chunk of the timeline from the "Death total" graph. Unvaxed have also been racking up deaths for two full flu seasons. 4xers hadn't seen a day of flu season in that timeline shown, it ended Sept 25th. 

 # of deaths is in the chart bottom right.