Jump to content

The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop pretending that I said 100% was required just to pretend to make a point. 

I used the polio vaccine as an example of a real vaccine, then I compared it to the Pflacebo. 

Whaaat? Stop pretending that there is any meaningful difference when you say "basically" 100% efficacy qualifies something as a vaccine. It's a bog-stupid statement and the world is full of vaccines of varying efficacy. It's a standard you pulled straight out of your ass. 

Quote

 

Holy f'ing stupidity Batman, are you still arguing how the numbers work?

Yes, some people are slow learners and I won't hold it against you that you need a lot of repitition.

 

Quote

Here's a thing:

Imagine that you gave 73% of the people a Pflacebo, and 27% of people nothing. You'd expect a 73/27 split among whatever outcomes you were looking for.

Now imagine that you gave 85% of people a "covid vaccine" and 15% of people had nothing. If the vaccine worked at all, you'd be expecting something like 60/40, or even 50/50 would be a positive result. But 88/12 is right smack in the middle of where you'd expect a Pflacebo to end up. IE, the "vaccine" isn't exactly "vaccining". It's "vacationing".

No, any person with knowledge of vaccines would not share your expectation. Read the damn article and stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

 

Quote

OFFS, are you really, seriously going to pretend that the flu vaccine is not called the flu vaccine in Canada. (A) It's common knowledge. (B) I already linked you to the government site and quoted, and (C) It literally says flu vaccine on your own goddamn link. It's like you went up to try for a dunk and just smashed your face into the rim instead. Embarrassing.

You're not fooling anyone. Just be wrong, learn and move on.

 

Quote

I posted actual stats, you posted someone's model, which is based on their own beliefs

It's part of statistics, just like imaginary numbers are a part of math. Neither one is necessary here because we have the "rubber meets the road" stats - they're all that really matters. 

You did indeed post stats that you don't understand. And I can explain to you, and I can give you articles that explain, but, alas, I can't understand it for you.

Quote

OMG, what a bunch of pathetic excuses and dodging. 

You're completely dodging the part about "The MSM lying to promote rioting" and "politicians who promoted rioting for months where their constituents lived and then shrieking "PTSD" when they experienced less than 1/4 of a day of it".

Your head couldn't be any further up your ass.

At no point in history has the US been more of a giant shithole. 2015-2022 is not the best time for any American, blacks included. 

You continue to miss the point of the exercise, and I certainly disagree with your conclusion. 

Quote

It's ballsy that you even replied, TBH. I thought for sure that I'd seen the last of you.

 

Again, very cute. You have a Trumpian misunderstanding of your own capabilities. I don't think anyone is intimidated by ignorant internet bluster. And frankly, the more you reply the more it undermines your bizarre worldview. Please, keep going. Tell me more about how the "flu shot" isn't a flu vaccine in Canada. I especially enjoyed that part. Is it because of the exchange rate? The metric system? Inquiring minds want to know!

You are entertaining. I'll give you that.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Your source is an article from a conservative think tank which clearly concludes that Biden’s primary responsibility in higher gas prices is based on his policy towards Russia. You didn’t address that at all. 
The article claims that Biden’s actions will increase fuel prices in five to ten years but your claim is about NOW, and the article is clear that Biden had little to do with it. 
That’s what the article says.  Deal with it. Props for providing a decently written article.  

Liar. The article actually says Ol' Joe produced higher prices before this Russia/Ukraine thing ever started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Liar. The article actually says Ol' Joe produced higher prices before this Russia/Ukraine thing ever started.

I quoted the article. You spewed out a bunch of insults. If you can’t quote the article to prove your claim, I assume it is because you are lying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Whaaat? Stop pretending that there is any meaningful difference when you say "basically" 100% efficacy qualifies something as a vaccine. It's a bog-stupid statement and the world is full of vaccines of varying efficacy. It's a standard you pulled straight out of your ass. 

You already tried to say that I meant 100% was  the standard, ie - you lied - now you're just babbling. Grow up.

Every single thing that I said about vaxes was 100% true and we both know that. That's all that really matters.

Quote

Yes, some people are slow learners and I won't hold it against you that you need a lot of repitition.

I hope you're learning. 

You were completely hoodwinked by what you thought were "stats" and then you tried to use the term "base rate fallacy" and it was an epic fail.

I'm not in need of repetition, I got everything right the first time. 

Quote

No, any person with knowledge of vaccines would not share your expectation. Read the damn article and stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

Lol.

Placebo results don't vary from non-placebo results (in instances where attitude can't affect the outcome), just like Pflacebo results don't vary from unvaxed results.

Understand it or don't, IDGAF. Just keep saying the same stupid things over and over. It's a hit with other ignorant and ill-informed toadies. 

Quote

OFFS, are you really, seriously going to pretend that the flu vaccine is not called the flu vaccine in Canada. (A) It's common knowledge. (B) I already linked you to the government site and quoted, and (C) It literally says flu vaccine on your own goddamn link. It's like you went up to try for a dunk and just smashed your face into the rim instead. Embarrassing.

Even a glass of milk can be called a vaccine by the lowered standard of what a vaccine is, but we've always said flu shots in Canada. 

Save-on-Foods says flu shot. Shoppers drug mart says flu shot. Everywhere you look it's flu shot, flu sot, flu shot.

The fact that they call it a shot instead of a vaccine in most instances at least gives them some credibility.

Vax-Nazis say "covid vaccine" almost exclusively, and they're quite wrong in doing so.

Quote

You did indeed post stats that you don't understand. And I can explain to you, and I can give you articles that explain, but, alas, I can't understand it for you.

 I posted stats that you don't understand. Apparently you still don't.

Do you honestly still think that what I said amounted to a base rate fallacy? I'd love to hear you answer that, because either you'll be correct and admit that you were wrong in the first place, or you're still be wrong, which is arguably worse. 

Quote

You continue to miss the point of the exercise, and I certainly disagree with your conclusion. 

Uh-huh. The point of the exercise isn't to just nod my head and pretend that what you said wasn't patently false. It was to illuminate the fallacy of your previously stated opinion. 

FYI an America replete with MSM lies, misguided and massively destructive riots, and violent crime rates soaring isn't "an improvement", regardless of whether or not you get free TVs once in a while. 

Quote

ignorant internet bluster.

Like for example, when someone says "I have stats", but they just post a link to propaganda? (FYI The Lancet's projections of what covid deaths would be if their predictions were accurate is NOT A STAT. If I predict that you'll down the stairs 11 times a day because you're too dumb to tie your shoes that's not a stat. It's just an educated guess.)

FYI saying that 88% of covid deaths occurring among the vaxed, in a country where 85% of people are vaccinated, and that's Pflacebo territory, is not a base rate fallacy. It's purely accurate math.

For your edification, if you wanted to use the term base rate fallacy correctly, you'd say something like "Although 86% of eligible Canadians are vaxed, that number rises to 95% in the covid death demographic: ie the extremely elderly with co-morbidities. The fact that only 88% of deaths are among the unvaxed means that they're actually working to some extent. That is to say - to match up the covid death stat to the overall vax rate provides a base rate fallacy."

Now, that would be a real thing if we knew the vax rate in that demo, but we just know about vax rates by age, not by co-morbidities, and elderly people without co-morbidites do ok.

Also, vax-nazis love to pretend that even children need the vax, so for them to talk about the relative importance of the covid death demographic would be counterproductive.

Furthermore, for all we know, a large portion of the very unhealthiest people might not be vaxing. We all know people who continue to smoke and drink and eat unhealthy food when they're already on their death bed, or people who have outlived their spouse/children/friends etc and they don't want to live anymore. (Eg, both of my grandmothers lived 30 years after my grandfathers died. It was like a whole other life. Both of them had a child who had already died at that point, and they weren't able to do much and they weren't happy after 95. They might have vaxed at 60, when they still had spouses, or at 75 when they could still "do things", but at 95 neither of them would have done it.) Are those people in the "F it" crowd gonna take the jab? We'll never know, so there's no room to talk about a base rate fallacy in this instance. Sorry chump.

 Anyways, that's probably all over head. You're likely more confused now the ever.

Just take my advice: don't ever tell anyone else that your Lancet thingy was "a stat", and probably just don't ever say "base rate fallacy" again. Especially not to a mathematician. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You already tried to say that I meant 100% was  the standard, ie - you lied - now you're just babbling. Grow up.

Every single thing that I said about vaxes was 100% true and we both know that. That's all that really matters.

I hope you're learning. 

You were completely hoodwinked by what you thought were "stats" and then you tried to use the term "base rate fallacy" and it was an epic fail.

I'm not in need of repetition, I got everything right the first time. 

Lol.

Placebo results don't vary from non-placebo results, just like Pflacebo results don't vary from unvaxed results.

Understand it or don't, IDGAF. Just keep saying the same stupid things over and over. It's a hit with other ignorant and ill-informed toadies. 

Even a glass of milk can be called a vaccine by the lowered standard of what a vaccine is, but we've always said flu shots in Canada. 

Save-on-Foods says flu shot. Shoppers drug mart says flu shot. Everywhere you look it's flu shot, flu sot, flu shot.

The fact that they call it a shot instead of a vaccine in most instances at least gives them some credibility.

Vax-Nazis say "covid vaccine" almost exclusively, and they're quite wrong in doing so.

 I posted stats that you don't understand. Apparently you still don't.

Do you honestly still think that what I said amounted to a base rate fallacy? I'd love to hear you answer that, because either you'll be correct and admit that you were wrong in the first place, or you're still be wrong, which is arguably worse. 

Uh-huh. The point of the exercise isn't to just nod my head and pretend that what you said wasn't patently false. It was to illuminate the fallacy of your previously stated opinion. 

FYI an America replete with MSM lies, misguided and massively destructive riots, and violent crime rates soaring isn't "an improvement", regardless of whether or not you get free TVs once in a while. 

Like for example, when someone says "I have stats", but they just post a link to propaganda? (FYI The Lancet's projections of what covid deaths would be if their predictions were accurate is NOT A STAT. If I predict that you'll down the stairs 11 times a day because you're too dumb to tie your shoes that's not a stat. It's just an educated guess.)

FYI saying that 88% of covid deaths occurring among the vaxed, in a country where 85% of people are vaccinated, and that's Pflacebo territory, is not a base rate fallacy. It's purely accurate math.

For your edification, if you wanted to use the term base rate fallacy correctly, you'd say something like "Although 86% of eligible Canadians are vaxed, that number rises to 95% in the covid death demographic: ie the extremely elderly with co-morbidities. The fact that only 88% of deaths are among the unvaxed means that they're actually working to some extent. That is to say - to match up the covid death stat to the overall vax rate provides a base rate fallacy."

Now, that would be a real thing if we knew the vax rate in that demo, but we just know about vax rates by age, not by co-morbidities, and elderly people without co-morbidites do ok.

Also, vax-nazis love to pretend that even children need the vax, so for them to talk about the relative importance of the covid death demographic would be counterproductive.

Furthermore, for all we know, a large portion of the very unhealthiest people might not be vaxing. We all know people who continue to smoke and drink and eat unhealthy food when they're already on their death bed, or people who have outlived their spouse/children/friends etc and they don't want to live anymore. (Eg, both of my grandmothers lived 30 years after my grandfathers died. It was like a whole other life. Both of them had a child who had already died at that point, and they weren't able to do much and they weren't happy after 95. They might have vaxed at 60, when they still had spouses, or at 75 when they could still "do things", but at 95 neither of them would have done it.) Are those people in the "F it" crowd gonna take the jab? We'll never know, so there's no room to talk about a base rate fallacy in this instance. Sorry chump.

 Anyways, that's probably all over head. You're likely more confused now the ever.

Just take my advice: don't ever tell anyone else that your Lancet thingy was "a stat", and probably just don't ever say "base rate fallacy" again. Especially not to a mathematician. 

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. 

That's a watered down version of vaccine, re-defined to allow the Pflacebo to weasel in.

The Oxford definition is:

Quote
Definitions
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
 
 
 
 
 
vac·cine
noun
 
  1. 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 "extremely low-level immunity", or "barely perceptible elevations in immune response", it says immunity.

It doesn't work for everyone, but it actually has to work in a large percent of the population to fit the bill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

You don’t know what God wants you to believe. He commanded you to not eat pork, and you’re going to tell Him that Paul said it’s ok. You were commanded to love immigrants but you want them thrown out or imprisoned. You are commanded not to wear clothing with different threads mixed in but you do. You are commanded not to commit adultery but you cherish a man who repeatedly commits it. You just twisted the Bible into suiting what is convenient for you, and you think that makes you superior.  

Complete nonsense.  This is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You already tried to say that I meant 100% was  the standard, ie - you lied - now you're just babbling. Grow up.

Every single thing that I said about vaxes was 100% true and we both know that. That's all that really matters.

 

WestCanMan, meet WestCan Man: "I said "basically 100%", which is to say that the polio vaccine isn't 100% effective, but it's very close to it."

It was false the first time you said it. Repeating it reflects an inability to learn. Sometimes ego>IQ.

There is no standard of efficacy to define a vaccine approaching anywhere close to 100%. See past lists of well known vaccines not approaching that mark. 

 

Quote

You were completely hoodwinked by what you thought were "stats" and then you tried to use the term "base rate fallacy" and it was an epic fail.

I'm not in need of repetition, I got everything right the first time. 

 

Everything right, except you tried to pass of raw numbers as rates, you don't understand how vaccines work, you made an absurd claim about vaccine definition, and (my personal favorite) you claim the flu vaccine is not a vaccine. And these are just the highlights. lol

 

Quote

Even a glass of milk can be called a vaccine by the lowered standard of what a vaccine is, but we've always said flu shots in Canada. 

Save-on-Foods says flu shot. Shoppers drug mart says flu shot. Everywhere you look it's flu shot, flu sot, flu shot.

The fact that they call it a shot instead of a vaccine in most instances at least gives them some credibility.

No a glass of milk cannot be called a vaccine. This is another doozy of a bullshit claim. Do you even blush when lying like that?

Meanwhile... the fact that you're using supermarket marketing to try to redefine "vaccine" is comically on par for you. Nevertheless, let us indulge because it's just so damn fun watching you drown.

Save on Foods: "Getting the vaccine helps protect yourself, as well as those around you who may be vulnerable and at risk of severe complications from the flu."

Shoppers Drug Mart: "The type of influenza viruses that cause the flu tend to change year to year, requiring a new vaccine annually."

 

Please, please, let's do some more. lol

 

Quote

 

Do you honestly still think that what I said amounted to a base rate fallacy? I'd love to hear you answer that, because either you'll be correct and admit that you were wrong in the first place, or you're still be wrong, which is arguably worse. 

Yes! This is exactly the fallacy you proffered as proof of vaccine inefficacy, that the raw numbers of deaths among vaccinated people being near the number of deaths among the unvaccinated showed that the vaccine was ineffective. You failed to account for the fact that 90%ish of the population is vaccinated. It's a textbook case. 

Scientific American (already provided): "Taken at face value, these numbers may appear to indicate that vaccination does not make that much of a difference. But this perception is an example of a phenomenon known as the base rate fallacy. One also has to consider the denominator of the fraction—that is, the sizes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. With shots widely available to almost all age groups, the majority of the U.S. population has been vaccinated. So even if only a small fraction of vaccinated people who get COVID die from it, the more people who are vaccinated, the more likely they are to make up a portion of the dead."

The Lancet: "In the context of COVID-19 vaccines, the base-rate fallacy is often described as the illusion that vaccines are ineffective because, in highly vaccinated populations, the majority of COVID-19 cases occur among vaccinated people."

Dear Pandemic: "The base rate fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when people try to estimate the chance of something happening based only on specific examples in front of them, ignoring the background levels of those events in the population."

Here is a handy illustration if you don't understand the words alone. Flowing Data

Image

 

You don't have to believe me. The world is full of information. Again, go read the articles and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

 

Quote

Uh-huh. The point of the exercise isn't to just nod my head and pretend that what you said wasn't patently false. It was to illuminate the fallacy of your previously stated opinion. 

FYI an America replete with MSM lies, misguided and massively destructive riots, and violent crime rates soaring isn't "an improvement", regardless of whether or not you get free TVs once in a while. 

If you think Black Americans regret the BLM movement and would like to rewind time to before that work was done you know as much about Black Americans as you do about vaccines.

 

Quote

Anyways, that's probably all over head. You're likely more confused now the ever.

Just take my advice: don't ever tell anyone else that your Lancet thingy was "a stat", and probably just don't ever say "base rate fallacy" again. Especially not to a mathematician. 

Aw, bless your heart. Watching you flail around here, I think it's pretty clear you couldn't get over my head with a stepladder and stilts.❤️

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This all came out when Al Franken was thrown under the bus for pretending to grope a woman through her kevlar vest. The Dems actually need a sacrificial lamb to help create the impression that they were way up there on the moral high ground, because they wanted to fling some poop at Trump. Their aggressive defence of Bill Clinton was still fresh in people's memories and they needed to do a quick reset. 

"Look! We're ditching one of our own senators for merely pretending to grope a woman through her kevlar, as well as the woman's unsubstantiated accusation that he tried to kiss her on another occasion. We are THE party of women. All y'all bitches need ta vote fer us!"

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment

Ho-hum.

Trump getting an NDA signed before he banged a "woman of dubious integrity with a striking silhouette" was one of the most normal things that he ever did as a politician.

Workplace violations are very different from campaign finance violations.

Michael Cohen was CONVICTED of campaign finance violations for HIS ROLE in paying off Stormy Daniels.

Trump was listed as "Individual 1" in the indictment but for fishy reasons was never charged.

Cohen was OBVIOUSLY doing what Trump demanded, cause it ONLY served Trump's campaign.

FBI documents point to Trump role in hush money for porn star Daniels

Quote

FBI documents unsealed on Thursday suggest that Donald Trump was actively involved in engineering a hush-money payment shortly before the 2016 election to a porn actress who said she had a sexual encounter with him, as his personal lawyer Michael Cohen, campaign team and others scrambled to head off a scandal.

The documents, released on the orders of U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan, were used by law enforcement officials to obtain a 2018 search warrant that led to FBI raids on Cohen’s home and office.The documents provided the most extensive account to date of what appears to be then-candidate Trump’s personal involvement in the scheme to pay $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to avert a controversy for a campaign already reeling from the release of 2005 audio from the TV program “Access Hollywood” in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by the genitals.The documents detailed repeated communications between Trump and Cohen and Hope Hicks, Trump’s presidential campaign press secretary who later became a senior White House official.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

If plants close and demand rises because of population growth, etc. then the demand increases. 

Without the plants to burn them, there is no demand for fossil fuels.

Therefore reducing the NUMBER of FF plants, reduces demand for fossil fuels.

Increased demand for power is a different issue; it can be supplied in SEVERAL OTHER WAYS.

Nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and over a grid connected to OTHER locales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's a watered down version of vaccine, re-defined to allow the Pflacebo to weasel in.

The Oxford definition is:

It doesn't say "extremely low-level immunity", or "barely perceptible elevations in immune response", it says immunity.

It doesn't work for everyone, but it actually has to work in a large percent of the population to fit the bill. 

"Immunity" as used in that definition does NOT mean 100% immune, it means INCREASED immunity.

No vaccine provides 100% immunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

WestCanMan, meet WestCan Man: "I said "basically 100%", which is to say that the polio vaccine isn't 100% effective, but it's very close to it."

It was false the first time you said it. Repeating it reflects an inability to learn. Sometimes ego>IQ.There is no standard of efficacy to define a vaccine approaching anywhere close to 100%. See past lists of well known vaccines not approaching that mark.

The polio vaccine actually works really well. The exact opposite of the covid shot:

Quote

Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against paralytic polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective. A person is considered to be fully vaccinated if they received: Four doses of any combination of IPV and trivalent oral polio vaccine (tOPV), or.

.

Quote

  Everything right, except you tried to pass of raw numbers as rates,

Me:

Medical professionals have recorded all the covid deaths by vax status, that's an important stat.

You:

No, that's not worthwhile at all. You need to look at The Lancet's projection of what they think the covid death stats are, and would have been. It's more accurate, and meaningful. It's proof that the covid vaccines work.

Me:

Thanks for comin' out, genius. 

Quote

you don't understand how vaccines work,

I understand how they work. More importantly, I also understand the difference between "works" and "doesn't work"

Quote

you made an absurd claim about vaccine definition,

I printed the actual definition but I can't understand it for you. 

Quote

and (my personal favorite) you claim the flu vaccine is not a vaccine. And these are just the highlights. lol

The flu shot is generally referred to as a flu shot, to use the term vaccine is to cheapen the word. Using the word vaccine for the covid shot cheapens the word.

Vaccines work. They are effective. The side-effects are extremely minimal compared to the benefits conferred. They protect people from extremely dangerous pathogens with bad outcomes - ie they save lives.

It's important for people to trust actual vaccines. They will save the lives of lots of children. Vax hesitancy is a really big deal.

Conflating the covid jab with actual vaccines is dangerous, because it causes mistrust. 

Quote

No a glass of milk cannot be called a vaccine.

By your standards, a glass of milk meets the acquired level of protection to qualify as a vaccine. 

86% of Canadians drink milk, 88% of covid deaths are among milk drinkers. See how well milk protects you?

Quote

Meanwhile... the fact that you're using supermarket marketing to try to redefine "vaccine" is comically on par for you. Nevertheless, let us indulge because it's just so damn fun watching you drown.

I said that supermarkets don't call the flu shot a vaccine. You can choose to make that a definition if you want, there are many things floating around in your head that are far more idiotic than that. 

Quote

Save on Foods: "Getting the vaccine helps protect yourself, as well as those around you who may be vulnerable and at risk of severe complications from the flu."

Shoppers Drug Mart: "The type of influenza viruses that cause the flu tend to change year to year, requiring a new vaccine annually."

 

 

They go back and forth between "shot" and "vaccine", exactly like I said. That's not the same as just always calling it a vaccine, like they do with the covid jab.

FYI calling it a shot is far more casual. The protection of the flu shot is 'casual'. Not a big deal. If you get it there's still a really good chance that you'll get the full-blown flu. 

Quote

Yes! This is exactly the fallacy you proffered as proof of vaccine inefficacy, that the raw numbers of deaths among vaccinated people being near the number of deaths among the unvaccinated showed that the vaccine was ineffective. You failed to account for the fact that 90%ish of the population is vaccinated. It's a textbook case. 

There you go - the problem is that you're just really stupid.

If 86% of the people wore red shirts, you'd expect 86% of covid deaths to occur among people wearing red shirts. Do you understand that? That's not a base rate fallacy, it's simple proportions. 

When you saw that 88% of people who died of covid had red shirts, you'd say "Just like we suspected, red shirts didn't reduce covid deaths". 

When you give the jab to 86% of Canadians, if you feel like it is going to be somewhat effective, you'd expect less than 86% of covid deaths to occur among the jabbed. If, for example, only 60% of deaths came from the jabbed you could say "Yay! It saved a lot of lives!"

A base rate fallacy in that instance would be if someone said "More than half of covid deaths came from the jabbed! It doesn't work!" Those people would be stupid, because if it didn't work, just like the red shirts didn't work, then 86% of deaths would have occurred among the vaxed (ie, directly in proportion to the % of jabbed).

An example of an actual vaccine is polio. When you vaccinate 90% of people for polio, you expect to see the very vast majority of polio deaths to occur among the mere 10% of the population that's unvaxed, and that's exactly what you would get. The original polio vax wasn't 100% effective, some people still got polio and died. The polio vax is right around 100% effective now, during the time frame given for full protection. Almost everyone who dies of polio now is either unvaxed, or their protection has expired. 

The percentage of people who are dying from covid right now who are "vaxed" is equal to the percentage of vaxed people in our population. That means that there's no reduction of bad outcomes, or at least deaths, among the vaxed. This is very simple math. The only reason why you don't understand it is because you are not smart enough to do basic math. Shocker. 

Quote

Qw, bless your heart. Watching you flail around here, I think it's pretty clear you couldn't get over my head with a stepladder and stilts.❤️

I went way over your head with basic fractions. I wasn't even trying to confuse you, I was trying to help you understand.

Do you have a child in grade 5 or so that can explain this to you? 

Screen Shot 2022-10-05 at 1.07.20 PM.png

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Immunity" as used in that definition does NOT mean 100% immune, it means INCREASED immunity.

Wrong. 

Rumour has it that the authors of the Oxford dictionary speak pretty good English. If they meant that "vaccines increase immunity by a minimal amount" they would have said "vaccines increase immunity by a minimal amount".

Edited by WestCanMan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hodad

In summary:

1) The Lancet's estimates are not a stat

2) The percentage of deaths among Canadians who are vaxed, compared to the percentage of vaxed Canadians is a stat. In fact, it's the only stat that really matters.

3) When the percentage of vaxed deaths is equal to the percentage of vaxed persons, that means that the vax isn't saving lives, and that's not a base rate fallacy. Stop trying to use your shiny new term.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

In summary:

1) The Lancet's estimates are not a stat

2) The percentage of deaths among Canadians who are vaxed, compared to the percentage of vaxed Canadians is a stat. In fact, it's the only stat that really matters.

3) When the percentage of vaxed deaths is equal to the percentage of vaxed persons, that means that the vax isn't saving lives, and that's not a base rate fallacy. Stop trying to use your shiny new term.

 

If a plague needs a 24/7 ad campaign to try to remind you that it exists...is it a plague?

If a vaccine needs a 24/7 ad campaign to try to convince you that it's actually doing something beneficial...is it a vaccine?

They both fail the sniff test.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Without the plants to burn them, there is no demand for fossil fuels.

Therefore reducing the NUMBER of FF plants, reduces demand for fossil fuels.

Increased demand for power is a different issue; it can be supplied in SEVERAL OTHER WAYS.

Nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and over a grid connected to OTHER locales.

Ur dismissed. My lord what dumb-assery.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living here in SW Florida where 2.2 million people had no electric after Ian this week. How did all those electric cars all get charged? They didn't Why is there a photo floating around of a guy in an electric car filling up gas cans?

In California, they can't even keep their electric on, but they are phasing out the sale of gas powered cars.

It's pure insanity, and pure virtue signaling. "Look how woke I can be to climate change" They are making bold moves to 'save the planet' w/ no real plan in place. I am all for a Greener Earth and less pollution. I belive in global warming, but I am also smart enough to know you can't push a button and everything magically becomes Green and CO2 free. They need to put a long term plan into place. Nothing worse than seeing Biden shut down our energy independence and oil production and then go begging countries that hate us for more oil; countries that produce that oil in a less cleaner way than we can. OR, buying all the minerals we need for these electric cars from China, and Russia, the world's biggest polluters. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2022 at 9:42 PM, blackbird said:

Complete nonsense.  This is a waste of time.

Nonsense, huh?

Do you believe that the Holy Bible contains the commandments of God? Yes, or No?


Do you eat pork?

Do you eat shellfish?

Do you welcome foreigners?

Do you wear clothing created from two different kinds of fibers?

Now who’s full of nonsense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FloridaUSPatriot said:

Living here in SW Florida where 2.2 million people had no electric after Ian this week. How did all those electric cars all get charged? They didn't Why is there a photo floating around of a guy in an electric car filling up gas cans?

In California, they can't even keep their electric on, but they are phasing out the sale of gas powered cars.

It's pure insanity, and pure virtue signaling. "Look how woke I can be to climate change" They are making bold moves to 'save the planet' w/ no real plan in place. I am all for a Greener Earth and less pollution. I belive in global warming, but I am also smart enough to know you can't push a button and everything magically becomes Green and CO2 free. They need to put a long term plan into place. Nothing worse than seeing Biden shut down our energy independence and oil production and then go begging countries that hate us for more oil; countries that produce that oil in a less cleaner way than we can. OR, buying all the minerals we need for these electric cars from China, and Russia, the world's biggest polluters. 

How do you pump gas without electricity?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Nonsense, huh?

Do you believe that the Holy Bible contains the commandments of God? Yes, or No?


Do you eat pork?

Do you eat shellfish?

Do you welcome foreigners?

Do you wear clothing created from two different kinds of fibers?

Now who’s full of nonsense?

You are.  That's not how the Bible is interpreted.  If you don't believe me, Google it or ask any minister of a church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

@Hodad

In summary:

If you want to reframe, and clean up that's fine. I'll consider some of your sillier claims settled. No, vaccines needn't approach 100% efficacy to meet some threshold to be considered a vaccine--nor 90%, nor 80% etc.  Yes, the flu vaccine is a vaccine. Settled.  

 

Quote

1) The Lancet's estimates are not a stat

No, statistical models are not "a stat." But those models certainly are part statistics. if you are unaware, statistics goes far beyond counting what has already happened. Much of the value is derived from predicting alternative or future outcomes based on past data, which is exactly what the Lancet article offered you. You are calling an entire branch of statistics "propaganda" which is asinine.

Quote

2) The percentage of deaths among Canadians who are vaxed, compared to the percentage of vaxed Canadians is a stat. In fact, it's the only stat that really matters.

3) When the percentage of vaxed deaths is equal to the percentage of vaxed persons, that means that the vax isn't saving lives, and that's not a base rate fallacy. 

 

I have explained this so many times- and offered other sources to explain it as well- that I am not hopeful, but here goes...

A. The charts you presented DO NOT show the percentage of deaths among the vaxxed and unvaxxed in real time

B. The charts you provided capture raw numbers (total deaths) a single point in time--and they are cumulative to boot. They are not rates.

C. They are academic trivia. You can infer virtually nothing about vaccine efficacy from those numbers. 

Example: Stipulating an effective vaccine

Checkpoint 1: If you looked at those numbers on day 1 of the vaccination campaign, when nearly 100% of the population was unvaxxed nearly 100% of the deaths would be among the unvaccinated. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines were almost 100% effective.

Checkpoint 2: Setting aside age and other variables, if you looked at those numbers on day 90 of the vaccination campaign when 50% of the population was vaxxed the death count would likely skew heavily toward the unvaccinated. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines were still very effective.

Checkpoint 3: And if you looked at the numbers on, say, day 180 when 90% of the population were vaxxed, deaths would likely still skew toward the unvaxxed, but the numbers would be closer. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines were only somewhat effective.

Checkpoint 4: Fast forward 600 days later. 90% of the population has been vaccinated  for 2+ years. By raw number, most of the deaths in the last 2 years have been among the vaccinated (because almost everyone is vaccinated) and when you look at the cumulative totals you'll see, by number, a lot more deaths among the vaccinated. A person engaging in your fallacious reasoning would determine that the vaccines had a negative effect, and made one more likely to die. 

So did the vaccine efficacy change between these checkpoints? Nope. The composition of the population, vaxxed vs unvaxxed changed. And time passed allowing deaths to accumulate in both categories. But a person using your "methodology" would have drawn very different conclusions about efficacy at each point in time. Because it's fallacious reasoning.

If you actually want to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you would want rates for both variables, not raw numbers. For example, compare:

  • COVID deaths per 100K unvaccinated
  • COVID deaths per 100K vaccinated   

Which you can look up in many different places--once you understand the stats you provided and why they don't mean what you think they mean. 

Example The unvaccinated are many times more likely to die of COVID than the vaccinated. The vaccines are effective.

image.thumb.png.15a98cf9413284f82a4547687e5f105d.png

 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If you want to reframe, and clean up that's fine. I'll consider some of your sillier claims settled. No, vaccines needn't approach 100% efficacy to meet some threshold to be considered a vaccine--nor 90%, nor 80% etc.  Yes, the flu vaccine is a vaccine. Settled.  

It was important to condense that, it got a bit lengthy.

I hope that you know realize that Lancet's guesses aren't "stats". You should probably thank me for sparing you the future embarrassment of making that mistake again. 

None of my claims were unsettled Hodad. Just because I used the polio vaccine as an example (vax-Nazis used polio vaxxing as a model for why widespread covid "vaxxing" was important, while not knowing that there is no comparison whatsoever between a Pflacebo and a vaccine) doesn't mean that I said all other vaxes have to live up to that lofty standard.

That is a strawman argument of yours, but if you need a small victory, congrats on defeating your strawman.

Quote

No, vaccines needn't approach 100% efficacy to meet some threshold to be considered a vaccine--nor 90%, nor 80% etc.  Yes, the flu vaccine is a vaccine. Settled.  

FYI the Pflacebo isn't near 90%. It's not near 80%. It's not near 60%. It's not near 50%. It's not near 40%. It's in placebo territory.

In fact, wearing a red shirt gives you the same level of protection as taking the vax, as evidenced by the fact that vaxed people die at exactly the same rate as unvaxed people do in Canada (maybe 2% higher, we'll call it a draw just to be fair).

If you gave people red shirts they'd die at the same rate as unvaxed people do, which is the exact same rate as vaxed people die at. 86% vaxed, and 88% of our covid deaths come the vaxed.

I don't know how you still fail to comprehend this, but it's what makes you a leftist, so enjoy? I guess?

Quote

No, statistical models are not "a stat." But those models certainly are part statistics. if you are unaware, statistics goes far beyond counting what has already happened. Much of the value is derived from predicting alternative or future outcomes based on past data, which is exactly what the Lancet article offered you. You are calling an entire branch of statistics "propaganda" which is asinine.

Weird, because you said this:

Quote

Yeah, stats are pretty useful. 

Like these, from The Lancet

Are you admitting that what you said was stupid now? Thanks

Quote

But those models certainly are part statistics. if you are unaware, statistics goes far beyond counting what has already happened. Much of the value is derived from predicting alternative or future outcomes based on past data, which is exactly what the Lancet article offered you. You are calling an entire branch of statistics "propaganda" which is asinine.

Observe, if you will, the full rundown on how stupid the Lancet's "st?tistical model" (the one you got sucked in by) was:

(Here's an important thing about math which you're obviously not aware of Hodad - whenever you arrive at some form of an answer, your first and most logical step in verifying it is to ask yourself: "Is this answer within the realm of possibility?" If the answer to that is no, then it's time to do some thinnin'. Eg, if the question is 2y + 7 = 19, and your initial answer is 63 billion, you should instantly know that you're way off without having to put that number back in the equation and working it out.)

With that being said, your "statistical model" was this stupid:

The total number of people to die of covid to date, in the whole world, is less than 7M.

We both know that the vax was non-existent for the first 12 months of covid, and barely anyone had 2 doses by late April of 2021, so for all intents and purposes there was a full 16 months where 99% of the entire world was "unprotected" by the Pflacebo, and 16 months where the world went from roughly 2% to its current total of 63%.

The Lancet's st?tistical model, which you wrongly called a 'stat', puts the number of "vax-saved" individuals at 14.4 million. 

So ask yourself: "If approximately 100% of the population was unvaxed for 16 months, and then the % of vaxed went from 2% to 63% over the next 16 months, and the total number of dead is 7M, how did the vax save 14.4M people?"  

How could one possibly surmise that 2/3 of all covid deaths (7M out of 21M [that's 7M + your 14.4M 'saved']) would have come from the 63% of the population that was vaxed for 1 of the 3 flu seasons? And when you crunch that math, just remember that corona was a novel virus in the first 16 months. By the time the vax came out, a lot of the 'novelty' had worn off. Furthermore, ancestral covid was more virulent than its later iterations.

3 flu seasons = 2019/'20, 2020/'21, and 2021/'22. The first one was about half a flu season if you wanna get technical, but the 20/21 flu season was a full flu season, with almost zero dbl-vaxed persons on the entire planet.

I know you almost certainly don't understand that, but whatever, most of the rest of the world sees the obvious BS in Lancet's st?t.  

Quote

I have explained this so many times- and offered other sources to explain it as well- that I am not hopeful, but here goes...

A. The charts you presented DO NOT show the percentage of deaths among the vaxxed and unvaxxed in real time

B. The charts you provided capture raw numbers (total deaths) a single point in time--and they are cumulative to boot. They are not rates.

C. They are academic trivia. You can infer virtually nothing about vaccine efficacy from those numbers. 

You didn't explain anything, you just keep on saying things which are patently stupid.

A. They do if you break down the difference in the number of covid deaths, per category, during the time frames in between the dates that the data was released on. It is exactly what they do. It doesn't matter how many died on each day, that would just be a collection of small sample sizes. 

B. Jesus Christ man, you're thick as two short bricks glued together. That's not the number of people who died on that day. It's the number of people who died since the very 1st day of vaxing - Dec 14 2020. Subtract the number of people who were dead on May 1 2022 from the number of people who were dead on Aug 24 2022 and then you know how many people died between May 1 and Aug 24

C. Stupid AF. I give up on you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...