85.7% of Covid Deaths in Canada Were Among the Multi-Vaxed from Aug to Sept of 2022. Jabbing 85% of the Population Didn't Reduce Deaths

[myata]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

the question has been addressed to the point

A common misconception to confuse the volume of propaganda with the number of meaningful answers. Have you seen many intelligent analyses comparing different policies, including many successful ones and justifying more hectic, heavyhanded and restrictive policies?

Edited November 21, 2022 by myata

[Hodad]

20 hours ago, myata said:

And to the point of the topic. Suppose we had two parts of population, similar in every respect except one was vaccinated and the other, not. This is a classical controlled study. Then, if the incidence of the effect (like a case of infection, or serious complication) in the main (treated) and control groups is the same, it means that the hypothesis (the agent is effective) has exactly zero statistical evidence in its support.

Now go ahead, say or show something that has a meaning and can lead to an intelligent discussion. Otherwise we're down to the basic cave-age argument: whose stick is bigger or, in our modern interpretation, which propaganda pipe blows louder. Neither is good, that is, could offer us good solutions for the kind of problems we face and will face in this century. Just believe in us (and our science"") and let's see what happens, or just trust ME on my word and you'll be OK. We'll be screwed one way or the other if we don't require and insist on clarity, meaningful policies, accountability and responsibility of the governments.

H#ck, we require accountability and explicability from AI but what about our governments?

Okay. Let's establish shared reality. The unvaccinated population skews significantly toward young, low-risk demo. The multi-vaxxed population skews decidedly toward the oldest and highest risk population. It's simply a function of the fact that those most at risk have the highest motivation to get vaxxed and boosted.

PHAC

So, again, the unvaccinated population has a significant built-in advantage in terms of baseline risk. They're younger. They have an expected survival advantage over the closest peer group: those who have completed a primary vaccine series (but maybe weren't recommended or prioritized for boosting or weren't feeling threatened enough to get boosted). Yet despite this inbuilt advantage for the unvaxxed population, we see a dramatic difference in outcomes in favor of those who have completed the primary series.

PHAC

If the vaccines were not effective, these groups would all have equal representation, negative outcomes would align with cases. However, you can see that the unvaccinated are overrepresented in both hospitalizations and deaths. The closest group in terms of comparing like to like or control vs test (though still disadvantaged) is the primary vax group, which is dramatically underrepresented in terms of hospitalization and death. 

Switch from distribution to numbers and put it another way. A little over 1% of the COVID cases among the unvaccinated resulted in death. Whereas, just .48% of COVID cases among the primary vaccine group resulted in death. 

Again, if the vaccines were not effective these numbers would be the same. But they're not. Even overcoming the youth advantage the vaccinated crowd is at a significant survival advantage. It's an inescapable mathematical fact that the vaccines are saving lives. A lot of lives.

 

What of the high death rate among the multi vaxxed? Again, I'd point you to the age stratification. The highest risk groups are the ones getting boosted. The vaccine can still confer a significant survival advantage within this risk strata and still a lot of them will die--fewer than if they were unvaccinated, but still a lot. And it's not a subtle age skew, it's dramatic. Compare this to the primary series chart. 

Or, again, if you want to flip it to numbers instead of distribution, Just over 1% of cases among the single boosted resulted in death (comparable to the unvaxxed despite a HUGE age disadvantage) and just over 2% of the 4x+ vaxxed cases resulted in death, even among the highest risk by age. 

The point is that yes, there is ample statistical evidence that the vaccines are effective. If anyone has the outcome comparison for stratified age ranges to compare vaxxed vs unvaxxed 40-50, 50-60, 60-70 and so on,I 'd love to see it, and am confident that it would show advantage for every age range. But even without that cleaner view of the data the statistics here are very clear. The vaccines are saving lives.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Hodad

[myata]

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

The unvaccinated population skews significantly toward young, low-risk demo. The multi-vaxxed population skews decidedly toward the oldest and highest risk population

Agree.

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

we see a dramatic difference in outcomes in favor of those who have completed the primary series.

No we cannot see it because the government data cannot be trusted blindly and unquestionably. For three reasons at least: first there were inconsistencies in reporting; secondly there has never been any independent audit. And finally, do they even make sense (the table "outcomes of confirmed...")?

Understand: if the numbers define the outcome, and I draw the numbers, without any control or accountability, how would it be different from me just saying it? This, the question of trust and credibility is the other side of being able to push some agenda with no accountability or reasonable limits.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Agree.

No we cannot see it because the government data cannot be trusted blindly and unquestionably. For three reasons at least: first there were inconsistencies in reporting; secondly there has never been any independent audit. And finally, do they even make sense (the table "outcomes of confirmed...")?

Understand: if the numbers define the outcome, and I draw the numbers, without any control or accountability, how would it be different from me just saying it? This, the question of trust and credibility is the other side of being able to push some agenda with no accountability or reasonable limits.

Well, okay, but this is just a sort of statistical solipsism. If the numbers from PHAC can be misused to criticize vaccine effectiveness they should be equally trusted to validate it, right? And can the auditors be trusted? -- In any case I don't think there will be any independent audits conducted. There's no profit in it. 

FWIW, here is data from the US CDC. You can compare by age groups.

 

We don't have the benefit of Canada's high participation rate, but you can see in this data again that vaccinating and boosting confers a significant survival advantage. The unvaccinated are significantly more likely to be infected and dramatically more likely to die. And you'll find that is pretty consistent in other countries as well, those that share robust datasets. 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Well, okay, but this is just a sort of statistical solipsism. If the numbers from PHAC can be misused to criticize vaccine effectiveness they should be equally trusted to validate it, right? And can the auditors be trusted? -- In any case I don't think there will be any independent audits conducted. There's no profit in it. 

FWIW, here is data from the US CDC. You can compare by age groups.

 

We don't have the benefit of Canada's high participation rate, but you can see in this data again that vaccinating and boosting confers a significant survival advantage. The unvaccinated are significantly more likely to be infected and dramatically more likely to die. And you'll find that is pretty consistent in other countries as well, those that share robust datasets. 

Your stats just keep zeroing in on the 0.001% of the population who are over 80 and unvaccinated, and it is the one demographic in the world that's loaded with the most outliers by far.

They're the central theme and the big bump that dominates every "The Pflacebo iz Awsum!" graph that you post but the age stat is useless without the accompanying knowledge about their health status as well. 

Like I've told you many times, there are a lot of people who are 80+ and terminal who don't want to extend their lives. They shouldn't be the central focus of the conversation around vaccinations.

FWIW, when our father-in-law was in hospital dying of dementia, they were swabbing his nose for covid every day while he was on palliative care. It was absolutely worthless from his own medical perspective whether he had covid or not because he had less than a week to live, and if he got covid then he got the virus from inside of there anyways, which means that the virus was there making its rounds and his being there with or without it didn't really change anything. 

Literally all that they were doing was trying to nudge him into a statistical category which was completely irrelevant to his predicament.

We were told he didn't have covid, it didn't make any difference one way or another, but we don't know whether or not he was categorized as a covid death. 

[WestCanMan]

Health Canada still hasn't updated their "Covid Deaths by Vax Status" chart. 

The next chart should end on Oct 16th or 23rd, that's a full month ago now.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

to validate it, right?

Agree. With unknown to me budget of PHAC we (me, personally) cannot have confidence either in the numbers or conclusions derived from them. This is not philosophical but logical: F = m a squared; I get to decide what a is. I can set it to 0.1 and or if I like, 100. What does the result mean? Does it mean something / anything in the reality, or only/mostly, in my mind?

Again this is the other side, an inevitable result of absence of accountability and policy driven by ideology. We are not interested whether vaccines are/were very effective, to what extent, for whom, is / was the problem really so serious to justify coercive measures, the first questions in determination of any reason-based policy. No we say they have to be effective and then go out to prove it.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

We don't have the benefit of Canada's high participation rate, but you can see in this data again that vaccinating and boosting confers a significant survival advantage.

That can be so, and for some. The question was different though: were the seriousness of the problem, and the apparent benefit in survival enough to justify coercive and restrictive policies. I would have no issues whatsoever in the data like above being made publicly available, still better after an independent audit and a broad discussion open to specialists and public, then treatments made freely available to those who chose them.

And this is exactly what did not happen here. So putting all blame on "unvaxxed, antivaxxers" is a) wrong and b) knowingly and deliberately. The authors and proponents of these hack and awe policies have only themselves to blame.

[myata]

34 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

we don't know whether or not he was categorized as a covid death. 

That (if there's been improbable rate of Covid-tracked mortality in this age group) we should be able to determine based on statistics of previous, non Covid years. Really, the group population would be approximately same. If in extreme case, all mortality in the group was attributed to Covid it would mean that by some miracle, natural one has disappeared or was reduced (i.e., healed by a strike of statistician pen). With the known population of the group, and the natural, regular rate we could sum Covid-attributed and natural numbers and check if it would match the actual total in the group.

N (natural mortality) + Cov (Covid-attributed) = Tot (total, in age group) ->

if Tot - Cov < N, a huge red flag for validity of Covid statistics

Has anyone tried that? I would be interested to know.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, myata said:

That (if there's been improbable rate of Covid-tracked mortality in this age group) we should be able to determine based on statistics of previous, non Covid years. Really, the group population would be approximately same. If in extreme case, all mortality in the group was attributed to Covid it would mean that by some miracle, natural one has disappeared or was reduced (i.e., healed by a strike of statistician pen). With the known population of the group, and the natural, regular rate we could sum Covid-attributed and natural numbers and check if it would match the actual total in the group.

N (natural mortality) + Cov (Covid-attributed) = Tot (total, in age group) ->

if Tot - Cov < N, a huge red flag for validity of Covid statistics

Has anyone tried that? I would be interested to know.

There are sites where you can find the excess mortality rate charts for Canada and other countries.

Someone just posted the numbers here for Quebec iirc. Probably August or QoC.

There actually were excess deaths in the beginning of 2020 and again during the flu season of 2021/'22, but aside from those two periods the number of deaths was normal from 2022 til recently. Even the first covid flu season, winter 2020/21, wasn't a big time for excess deaths.

This summer had a really high number of covid deaths (85.7% of them being from the vaxed) compared to other summers, both during and pre-covid, but I'm not sure if it was enough to make a blip on the radar. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by WestCanMan

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, myata said:

Agree. With unknown to me budget of PHAC we (me, personally) cannot have confidence either in the numbers or conclusions derived from them. This is not philosophical but logical: F = m a squared; I get to decide what a is. I can set it to 0.1 and or if I like, 100. What does the result mean? Does it mean something / anything in the reality, or only/mostly, in my mind?

Again this is the other side, an inevitable result of absence of accountability and policy driven by ideology. We are not interested whether vaccines are/were very effective, to what extent, for whom, is / was the problem really so serious to justify coercive measures, the first questions in determination of any reason-based policy. No we say they have to be effective and then go out to prove it.

That can be so, and for some. The question was different though: were the seriousness of the problem, and the apparent benefit in survival enough to justify coercive and restrictive policies. I would have no issues whatsoever in the data like above being made publicly available, still better after an independent audit and a broad discussion open to specialists and public, then treatments made freely available to those who chose them.

And this is exactly what did not happen here. So putting all blame on "unvaxxed, antivaxxers" is a) wrong and b) knowingly and deliberately. The authors and proponents of these hack and awe policies have only themselves to blame.

Eh, I think there's certainly an element of philosophy involved any time one starts actively doubting available data without any evidence that it's of poor quality. I think there's some political predisposition coloring that logic. ? At any rate, based on the data we have (and from multiple countries with their respective agencies tracking) the vaccines are substantially effective.

But I agree that it's a separate question how policies are conceived and implemented. Personally, I don't have a lot of patience for anti-vaxxers (not just COVID, but in general). We have an anti-vax problem in the US because a nude model turned actress/celebrity and a discredited science fraud helped convince too much of the population that vaccines cause autism. Because we are collectively, as it turns out, pretty stupid. Now, children both vaxxed and unvaxxed are dying of diseases that were once effectively eradicated. FUD kills.

It's one of those things that often gets positioned as a matter of personal choice, but anti-vaxxers don't just take the take the risk upon themselves. They also inflict that risk upon the community.  When there's a significant community threat that comes with a choice the community should have a voice in the decision and the ability to exclude participation as a means of self defense. Rather like building codes, if you want to live in this neighborhood, keep your electric up to code so that you don't burn down my house too. If you really want to cut corners when it comes to safety, fine, but go live in the boonies where the conflagration will be confined to your property. -- I don't believe in literally forcing people to vaccinate, but think coercion is absolutely fair game. If someone doesn't want to do your part to protect the community from disease then the forfeit their right to participate in society in the same way. The casual, carefree and careless, attitudes of the groups at low personal risk would be fine if they weren't going to be negligently killing old people too. Netting it all out, Canada fared WAY better than the US during peak COVID. There are some nuanced factors at play, but I think the bulk of it is down to vaccine compliance. People followed the science. You weren't sabotaged by a nude model 10 years ago. Sigh.

[myata]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

without any evidence that it's of poor quality.

No no, there was evidence "unknown vaccination status", excess mortality, strongly recommended (by massive propaganda) children "vaccinations" etc. To not see it, glaring facts isn't matter even a matter of philosophy, more like physiology or ophthalmology. "Published" doesn't make "true" or "accurate" that would be a result, achievement not a given.

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

We have an anti-vax problem

Yes it can be bad. But what you seem to be missing in that picture is that accuracy, reason and trust is a two way street. Trust has to be achieved and maintained, not only proclaimed. The moment someone begins to claim a mandate of all-knowledge for the dimwit masses, without independent checks or oversight, the claims become vulnerable to all kind of abuses and there's no point in going through this cycle yet again. There were successful jurisdictions that had high quality public health system and zero or next to, mandates. They did just as well, in a broad sense. That in my view answers the question. Propaganda, excessive restrictions, mandates were clear government overreach supported by stretched and skewed, sometimes to incredibility, science.

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

They also inflict that risk upon the community. 

That needs to be proven, in each individual case, with accurate, clear and transparent for anyone to question arguments. It is not a prerogative of a supreme priest. We will be back 5,000 years in no time on this glorious path of progress.

[Hodad]

8 hours ago, myata said:

No no, there was evidence "unknown vaccination status", excess mortality, strongly recommended (by massive propaganda) children "vaccinations" etc. To not see it, glaring facts isn't matter even a matter of philosophy, more like physiology or ophthalmology. "Published" doesn't make "true" or "accurate" that would be a result, achievement not a given.

Yes it can be bad. But what you seem to be missing in that picture is that accuracy, reason and trust is a two way street. Trust has to be achieved and maintained, not only proclaimed. The moment someone begins to claim a mandate of all-knowledge for the dimwit masses, without independent checks or oversight, the claims become vulnerable to all kind of abuses and there's no point in going through this cycle yet again. There were successful jurisdictions that had high quality public health system and zero or next to, mandates. They did just as well, in a broad sense. That in my view answers the question. Propaganda, excessive restrictions, mandates were clear government overreach supported by stretched and skewed, sometimes to incredibility, science.

That needs to be proven, in each individual case, with accurate, clear and transparent for anyone to question arguments. It is not a prerogative of a supreme priest. We will be back 5,000 years in no time on this glorious path of progress.

Okay. You've made the claim. Lay out the evidence you have for why the PHAC data is of poor quality. It appears to me that you're conflating a lot of different things, including your own biases, but I'm open to seeing if you actually have what you claim.  (Not to mention the data from many other countries.) 

IMO, what is going back 5,000 years is turning our backs on the same scientific processes that have carried us all this way. We have vaccine deniers, climate change deniers, and all sorts of other manner of pseudo-cults built around conspiracy thinking. I assume these people have always existed. Once they would have been isolated-- they could go to ten doctors and get the same answer and they'd give up on their fantasy. Today, though, they have the internet, and can find like-minded people and delude themselves into thinking there are two sides to the story and that there is a conspiracy to suppress their views.  

Edited November 23, 2022 by Hodad

[WestCanMan]

On 11/21/2022 at 3:05 PM, Hodad said:

PHAC

If the vaccines were not effective, these groups would all have equal representation, negative outcomes would align with cases. However, you can see that the unvaccinated are overrepresented in both hospitalizations and deaths. The closest group in terms of comparing like to like or control vs test (though still disadvantaged) is the primary vax group, which is dramatically underrepresented in terms of hospitalization and death. 

If there was any justice in this world, you'd be booted off the internet forever for juxtaposing that chart and that idjitotic (can't use proper spelling to describe vaxtards anymore) comment when the net effect is so intentionally misleading.

For your information, that 4.5% "stat" at the bottom of your chart isn't even an actual stat - it's a mathematical abomination from the bowels an obscene disinformation campaign. 

That number you're showcasing is "the percentage of deaths among an average of 2.5M people in one summer" and it is being directly compared to "the number of deaths among (on avg) about 10M people over 22 months, including two flu seasons". 

If I made a direct comparison between the number of unavxed people who died this summer and the number of multi-vaxed people who died since Dec 14 2020 I think you'd suddenly be more statistically aware. 

In total we had all 38M of our population exposed to the first covid flu season ever and they are represented in that "unvaxed" data. The whole thing is just bogus.

The only true measure of the vaccine's success in Canada is here:

[WestCanMan]

19 hours ago, Hodad said:

We have an anti-vax problem in the US

No, anti-vaxers are just minuscule portion of the population, about 5 standards of deviation off the mean. 

For your edification: anti-vaxers are "people who refuse to get their children vaccinated with working vaccines, against deadly pathogens which still exist today", despite the fact that vaccine-induced herd immunity has all but eradicated those diseases in North America. In short, anti-vaxers are a bit crazy and they're a menace to their own children and society at large.

When you say "anti-vax" you actually mean "anti-Pflacebo", and it's an entirely different animal.

The Pflacebo has no actual measurable success to its name. When we gave the Pflacebo to 85% of our population, nothing changed at all. Covid deaths are even up slightly. People who have taken the Pflacebo have the same health expectations across the board, and the only way to even pretend that there is some success is by focusing on the biggest statistical outliers in the country - people who are over 80 with multiple underlying health conditions. IE, people who are so unhealthy that taking the vax wouldn't change their prognosis regardless of whether it worked like a charm or dragged them down like a boat anchor.

Here's what "vaccinating" 85% of your population can do for you:

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, myata said:

Yes it can be bad. But what you seem to be missing in that picture is that accuracy, reason and trust is a two way street. Trust has to be achieved and maintained, not only proclaimed.

And in this instance, trust relies on people being in awe of the fact that only 4.5% of our deaths are among the 4x-vaxed crowd.

The lengths that our country is going to in order to pretend that the vaccine is working is absurd.

Covid deaths are chugging along at the exact same rate they always were, but instead of seeing death counts on the daily news now we see vaccine pom-poms, misleading stats, and hear misleading quotes like "It's a pandemic of the unvaccinated!"

Trudeau & Biden: "So what if 85.7% of our deaths are among the vaxed and deaths aren't down at all? Find a way to put a bow on something, anything, and sell it to the peons as a success! They'll believe it. They voted for us for gawd's sake." 

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

For your information, that 4.5% "stat" at the bottom of your chart isn't even an actual stat - it's a mathematical abomination from the bowels an obscene disinformation campaign. 

Where is your evidence of these campaigners engaged in their campaign - email trails, recordings, whistleblowers etc?

I mean actual evidence as opposed to the ginned up nonsense you pull out of your butt.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Trudeau & Biden: "So what if 85.7% of our deaths are among the vaxed and deaths aren't down at all? Find a way to put a bow on something, anything, and sell it to the peons as a success! They'll believe it. They voted for us for gawd's sake." 

You have a recording of this conversation?

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

No, anti-vaxers are just minuscule portion of the population, about 5 standards of deviation off the mean. 

For your edification: anti-vaxers are "people who refuse to get their children vaccinated with working vaccines, against deadly pathogens which still exist today", despite the fact that vaccine-induced herd immunity has all but eradicated those diseases in North America. In short, anti-vaxers are a bit crazy and they're a menace to their own children and society at large.

When you say "anti-vax" you actually mean "anti-Pflacebo", and it's an entirely different animal.

The Pflacebo has no actual measurable success to its name. When we gave the Pflacebo to 85% of our population, nothing changed at all. Covid deaths are even up slightly. People who have taken the Pflacebo have the same health expectations across the board, and the only way to even pretend that there is some success is by focusing on the biggest statistical outliers in the country - people who are over 80 with multiple underlying health conditions. IE, people who are so unhealthy that taking the vax wouldn't change their prognosis regardless of whether it worked like a charm or dragged them down like a boat anchor.

Here's what "vaccinating" 85% of your population can do for you:

You are once again arguing numbers you don't understand and using them to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn. It absolutely has measurable success. I've showed you like a hundred times how to measure it.

Myata, for reasons TBD, doesn't seem trust the data. That's one thing. You are looking at the data and relying upon it to draw all the wrong conclusions. The data is crystal clear that the COVID vaccines work. You deny it and spread FUD about minor side effects. You may not like the comparison, but you aren't really any different than the anti-vaxxers that scare people away from the MMR vaccine.  

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are once again arguing numbers you don't understand and using them to draw conclusions that cannot be drawn. 

OMG, says the guy who uses the "ONLY 4.5% OF COVID DEATHS ARE AMONG the 4X-VAXED!" abomination.

I know that even you're smart enough to know how misleading your comments are. 

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG, says the guy who uses the "ONLY 4.5% OF COVID DEATHS ARE AMONG the 4X-VAXED!" abomination.

Why do you post stats that keep saying this?

What's wrong with you?

[Hodad]

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG, says the guy who uses the "ONLY 4.5% OF COVID DEATHS ARE AMONG the 4X-VAXED!" abomination.

I know that even you're smart enough to know how misleading your comments are. 

A. That's not something I really spend any time talking about. Remember, it doesn't matter what portion of the population is unvaxxed, double-vaxxed, or 3x and 4x vaxxed, or what portion is dying. The measure of outcome efficacy is what happens to each of those vaccination classes if they catch COVID. Spoiler: the vaccinated are dramatically less likely to die.

B.  My comments aren't misleading at all. They just lead to a conclusion that you don't like. Probably because you've invested countless hours and hundreds of posts telling people that these vaccines don't do anything, when the data shows that they are substantially effective.

Remember the seatbelts. The fact of the death count not going down does not mean that seatbelts- or vaccines -aren't saving lives.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Hodad

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG, says the guy who uses the "ONLY 4.5% OF COVID DEATHS ARE AMONG the 4X-VAXED!" abomination.

I know that even you're smart enough to know how misleading your comments are. 

I posted an article in a status update that addresses many of your arguments in this thread and also addresses why certain people are unable to understand what you're talking about.

Don't know if you saw the link, just wanted to bring it to your attention if you didn't.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

A. That's not something I really spend any time talking about. Remember, it doesn't matter what portion of the population is unvaxxed, double-vaxxed, or 3x and 4x vaxxed, or what portion is dying. The measure of outcome efficacy is what happens to each of those vaccination classes if they catch COVID. Spoiler: the vaccinated are dramatically less likely to die.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that we care about who's dying more than we care about your bizarre, misleading, kindergarten interpretation of the stats. 

Ask the families of people who are shoveling dirt on their loved ones if they care "how many people get sick compared to how many die."

And remember - if you had a vaccine people wouldn't even be getting sick.

Quote

B.  My comments aren't misleading at all. They just lead to a conclusion that you don't like.

They lead to a completely bogus conclusion, that's what I don't like.

The measure of a vaccine is its ability to save lives, and covid deaths didn't slow down by even 1% when we vaxed 85% of the country. The vaccines can't be shown to have saved even 1 life.

The vaxed still account for the exact proportion of the deaths that their percentage of the population should account for.

All that you have to back your outlandish claim that the jabs are vaccines is that way more vaxed people had to get sick in order to end up dying at the exact rate that we'd expect.

Quote

Probably because you've invested countless hours and hundreds of posts telling people that these vaccines don't do anything, when the data shows that they are substantially effective.

The data shows that vaccinated people die at the same rate as unvaxed, and the death rate in our country didn't slow down at all after 85% of us vaxed. 

If you can show me a graph or some data that shows how covid deaths slowed down somehow, that would be great.

If you can show me how less than 85.7% of the covid deaths during the last reporting period were among the multi-vaxed that would be great. 

I didn't cherry pick any stats. I'm using the most important stats for our entire country, right from day 1 to today.  You're trying to focus on a demographic that isn't even clearly defined - just "old"...

FYI "age" isn't a "covid death demographic". 

Discussing the probability of people's covid outcomes without knowledge of what underlying health conditions they may have is like guessing how fast they can run without knowing if they can even walk, how old they are, how much they weigh, etc. You're just going in blind.

Quote

Remember the seatbelts. The fact of the death count not going down does not mean that seatbelts- or vaccines -aren't saving lives.

Your seatbelt analogy was a joke, which I clarified for you in order to make it sensible, and then you pretended that you couldn't even understand it. 

Also remember - this idjitotic garbage came out of your mouth:

Quote

Remember, it doesn't matter what portion of the population is unvaxxed, double-vaxxed, or 3x and 4x vaxxed, or what portion is dying.

?

What a tool. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by WestCanMan

[WestCanMan]

33 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I posted an article in a status update that addresses many of your arguments in this thread and also addresses why certain people are unable to understand what you're talking about.

Don't know if you saw the link, just wanted to bring it to your attention if you didn't.

Thank you Goddess, I will check it out.

In the meantime, I just need to remind you of Hodad's quote:

Quote

Remember, it doesn't matter what portion of the population is unvaxxed, double-vaxxed, or 3x and 4x vaxxed, or what portion is dying.

If what he's saying is true, the jab is a vax. 

So is milk. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Oh, I'm pretty sure that we care about who's dying more than we care about your bizarre, misleading, kindergarten interpretation of the stats. 

Ask the families of people who are shoveling dirt on their loved ones if they care "how many people get sick compared to how many die."

And remember - if you had a vaccine people wouldn't even be getting sick.

They lead to a completely bogus conclusion, that's what I don't like.

The measure of a vaccine is its ability to save lives, and covid deaths didn't slow down by even 1% when we vaxed 85% of the country. The vaccines can't be shown to have saved even 1 life.

The vaxed still account for the exact proportion of the deaths that their percentage of the population should account for.

All that you have to back your outlandish claim that the jabs are vaccines is that way more vaxed people had to get sick in order to end up dying at the exact rate that we'd expect.

The data shows that vaccinated people die at the same rate as unvaxed, and the death rate in our country didn't slow down at all after 85% of us vaxed. 

If you can show me a graph or some data that shows how covid deaths slowed down somehow, that would be great.

If you can show me how less than 85.7% of the covid deaths during the last reporting period were among the multi-vaxed that would be great. 

I didn't cherry pick any stats. I'm using the most important stats for our entire country, right from day 1 to today.  You're trying to focus on a demographic that isn't even clearly defined - just "old"...

FYI "age" isn't a "covid death demographic". 

Discussing the probability of people's covid outcomes without knowledge of what underlying health conditions they may have is like guessing how fast they can run without knowing if they can even walk, how old they are, how much they weigh, etc. You're just going in blind.

Your seatbelt analogy was a joke, which I clarified for you in order to make it sensible, and then you pretended that you couldn't even understand it. 

Also remember - this idjitotic garbage came out of your mouth:

?

What a tool. 

You have no idea what the definition of vaccine is, and you clearly can't understand the data, and you've resorted once again to quoting me out of context. Maybe Myata will explain it to you. They distrust the accuracy of the data but seem to understand the math just fine. 

The seatbelt analogy is beautiful in that it *perfectly* illustrates the garbage logic you are trying to use.

Outboard shoulder belts became mandatory on all cars starting in 1968. Yet automotive fatalities went UP in 1969 and literally every year since.

You continue to argue that the measure of efficacy for a mitigating agent - vaccine or seatbelt- is the total number of deaths rather than deaths per incident.

That's an incredibly stupid argument, but you won't let it go. Let's see how far your fragile ego will push it. *Are you willing to go on record stating saying that seatbelts don't save lives?* If not, why not? Structurally it's the exact same problem.