Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's a fact that you have to learn to live with:

85.7% of our deaths in the last month were among the unvaxed.

Covid deaths didn't go down at all after we pseudovaxxed 85% of the country.

OK, so 85.7% of the deaths were unvaxxed people.

14.3% of the total deaths were from vaccinated people that could have been older, compromised or some other illness that affected the effectiveness of the vaccination.

Just shows you that you should get vaccinated.  I get that. :)

800+ posts on another thread and 40+ some here for you to realize unvaxxed folks die from COVID.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure I did, I pointed out your base rate fallacy weeks and weeks ago.

Since then you've done nothing but tangle yourself up into a Gordian Knot of string and pins while slipping in your own hooey. 

No, what you did was use big words that you don't understand, which made you look dumb to everyone who understands basic proportions.

I stated the death rates among vaxed and unvaxed with complete accuracy, and with proper perspective. That's the exact opposite of a base rate fallacy. 

Are there any other shiny new terms which you're itchin' to use but don't understand? I can definitely explain them to you but I can't understand them for you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm still puzzling over why you'd cite the same people to make your case.

They have all the actual stats there, they just do their best to present them in the most misleading ways possible. 

One of their favourite tricks is to present actual stats beside each other which are in now way comparable, which is basically just a base rate fallacy graph. 

They don't say the words "these are directly comparable", which would be to utter a base rate fallacy, they just put the numbers beside each other on a chart and leave you to assume that they are somehow comparable, when they are absolutely not comparable in any way. 

Eg, there have been a few million people quadruple-vaxed for one summer, and by contrast there were 38M Canadians unvaxed for the first covid flu season after the initial wave, and 6 million of us have remained unvaxed for the 22 months since then, which included another full flu season.

Making a direct comparison between the total % of covid deaths from the 5M 4xers between Dec 14 2020 and Sept 25th 2022, when they only existed for one summer in that period, with the total % of covid deaths from the unvaxed in that 2-yr span, is the epitome of a base rate fallacy. That chart was absolutely put out to be misleading, but people like you, @ExFlyer@Hodad, and @Moonbox fell for it hook, line and sinker. 

Quote

Further to that if what you say is true it's a crime.

 

If disinformation was a crime then CNN and CTV would be broadcasting from prison.

Infobase didn't tell you how to interpret their information, what it actually meant, or tell you to disseminate it as if it was somehow meaningful or relevant, they just put two numbers on a graph which are in no way comparable to each other and let you misinterpret it for yourself.

It's like they put an elephant turd and a chihuahua in an otherwise empty room and left you to blame the dog. You fell for it. They laughed. No crime was committed. 

Quote

Why aren't you blowing the whistle to people in a position who could use your conclusions to much better use than you taking up bandwidth around here? 

Who am I gonna tell, and what do I have to offer them aside from information that they already have? Do I have enough money to compete with big pharma for the souls of Trudeau, Pelosi and Biden?

Do you remember when I told you about how much of a conflict of interest it was for Drs to be allowed to receive compensation from big pharma for prescriptions that they give out? You're seeing that play out on a global scale now. 

Fauci knew that there was gain-of-function research being done on coronaviruses long before he ever started pimping the bat-pangolin-human farce. He knew that coronaviruses are airborne organisms. He even knew that the specific gain-of-function research done on them was to make the coronavirus more transmissible among humans

Then when The WHO said "We don't think that H2H transmission is occurring" he said nothing. He kept on pimping the bat-pangolin theory. When social media was deep-sixing the accounts of people who mentioned the Wuhan lab, Fauci was responsible for that. Why did people who were telling the truth get censored when the biggest liar and disinformer on the planet had the biggest platform of anyone?

Donald Trump, whom you hate with all your heart and soul, took the correct action by going against the recommendations of The WHO and standing up to the allegations of racism by the American MSM & the Dems, when he blocked travel from China by non-Americans. The cat was already out of the bag by that time, but at least he took the right course of action. He was roundly excoriated for it by the MSM. Then Trudeau did the same thing to India when the Delta wave came out and suddenly it wasn't racist anymore, he was just being heroic gain. Well GOLLLLeeeee.

Maybe it's time to reflect instead of just reacting. 

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

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

OK, so 85.7% of the deaths were...

...multi-vaxed. I made a typo. Big deal.

You know the facts now, why are you trying so hard to remain ignorant?

What do you think you stand to gain by keeping your head up your ass? Are you defending your precious reputation at the Repolitics forum? Oooh, heaven forbid you get embarrassed here. 

You'll keep on defending vax-fascism and advocating for the vaxing of children even though you know it's next to useless just becase you're too proud to admit that you were wrong.

Pathetic. 

85.7% of our deaths in the last month were among the multi-vaxed

Only 14.3% of our covid deaths in the last month were among the unvaxed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

...multi-vaxed. I made a typo. Big deal.

You know the facts now, why are you trying so hard to remain ignorant?

What do you think you stand to gain by keeping your head up your ass? Are you defending your precious reputation at the Repolitics forum? Oooh, heaven forbid you get embarrassed here. 

You'll keep on defending vax-fascism and advocating for the vaxing of children even though you know it's next to useless just becase you're too proud to admit that you were wrong.

Pathetic. 

85.7% of our deaths in the last month were among the multi-vaxed

Only 14.3% of our covid deaths in the last month were among the unvaxed.

Oh, change your post now.

Keep on keeping on. Going for 1000 + posts to convince someone of nothing???

You got your groupies stroking you so,  ? don't worry, be happy ?  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh, change your post now.

Keep on keeping on. Going for 1000 + posts to convince someone of nothing???

You got your groupies stroking you so,  ? don't worry, be happy ?  :)

Grow up.

85.7% of our deaths in the last month were among the multi-vaxed

Only 14.3% of our covid deaths in the last month were among the unvaxed.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

They have all the actual stats there, they just do their best to present them in the most misleading ways possible. 

One of their favourite tricks is to present actual stats beside each other which are in now way comparable, which is basically just a base rate fallacy graph. 

They don't say the words "these are directly comparable", which would be to utter a base rate fallacy, they just put the numbers beside each other on a chart and leave you to assume that they are somehow comparable, when they are absolutely not comparable in any way. 

Eg, there have been a few million people quadruple-vaxed for one summer, and by contrast there were 38M Canadians unvaxed for the first covid flu season after the initial wave, and 6 million of us have remained unvaxed for the 22 months since then, which included another full flu season.

Making a direct comparison between the total % of covid deaths from the 5M 4xers between Dec 14 2020 and Sept 25th 2022, when they only existed for one summer in that period, with the total % of covid deaths from the unvaxed in that 2-yr span, is the epitome of a base rate fallacy. That chart was absolutely put out to be misleading, but people like you, @ExFlyer@Hodad, and @Moonbox fell for it hook, line and sinker. 

If disinformation was a crime then CNN and CTV would be broadcasting from prison.

Infobase didn't tell you how to interpret their information, what it actually meant, or tell you to disseminate it as if it was somehow meaningful or relevant, they just put two numbers on a graph which are in no way comparable to each other and let you misinterpret it for yourself.

It's like they put an elephant turd and a chihuahua in an otherwise empty room and left you to blame the dog. You fell for it. They laughed. No crime was committed. 

Who am I gonna tell, and what do I have to offer them aside from information that they already have? Do I have enough money to compete with big pharma for the souls of Trudeau, Pelosi and Biden?

Do you remember when I told you about how much of a conflict of interest it was for Drs to be allowed to receive compensation from big pharma for prescriptions that they give out? You're seeing that play out on a global scale now. 

Fauci knew that there was gain-of-function research being done on coronaviruses long before he ever started pimping the bat-pangolin-human farce. He knew that coronaviruses are airborne organisms. He even knew that the specific gain-of-function research done on them was to make the coronavirus more transmissible among humans

Then when The WHO said "We don't think that H2H transmission is occurring" he said nothing. He kept on pimping the bat-pangolin theory. When social media was deep-sixing the accounts of people who mentioned the Wuhan lab, Fauci was responsible for that. Why did people who were telling the truth get censored when the biggest liar and disinformer on the planet had the biggest platform of anyone?

Donald Trump, whom you hate with all your heart and soul, took the correct action by going against the recommendations of The WHO and standing up to the allegations of racism by the American MSM & the Dems, when he blocked travel from China by non-Americans. The cat was already out of the bag by that time, but at least he took the right course of action. He was roundly excoriated for it by the MSM. Then Trudeau did the same thing to India when the Delta wave came out and suddenly it wasn't racist anymore, he was just being heroic gain. Well GOLLLLeeeee.

Maybe it's time to reflect instead of just reacting. 

We've had a nice break and I'm ready to talk again without immediately joining you in the insults. ?  You are talking about all kinds of stuff that doesn't matter. I have a third grader who is getting into more and more word problems in his math homework, and he is constantly tripping over the extra numbers that they slip in--the ones that aren't essential to the problem. That kind of thing is not restricted to math homework though, happens all through life and it's exactly what's happening to you. 

Forget about summers and flu seasons, total deaths last month and the raw number of multi-vaxxed people and when and for how long anyone has been vaxxed. None of that stuff matters. It's all extranea. None of it speaks directly to efficacy. 

In terms of outcomes, what constitutes efficacy? It's pretty straightforward. If an individual is vaccinated and contracts COVID, are they less likely to become severely ill (hospitalized) or die than if they had not been vaccinated. And if so, how much? Basic question: did the vaccine work for this person?

That's it. You don't need any other questions to get at outcome efficacy. So, how would you actually measure it? 

Ideally, you'd have multiple versions of the same person and could address on an individual level with controlled testing, but obviously that's not possible. We're talking about the real world. Next best option is to track outcomes in groups of similar people, i.e. stratified by risk to compare like to like. We can't quite do that because individual risk is difficult to get from the data that is collected. But age is a pretty good proxy and would be an appropriate way to compare the outcomes. That is indeed the best viable scenario in the real world. 

Can we at least all agree on that much?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I correctly pointed out that you got duped into posting disinformation.

1) I didn't ignore the other two, I just didn't see them because I disregarded everything after looking at your initial chart, which was so intentionally misleading. 

2) I addressed those later, but you're choosing to ignore that fact so that you can keep pretending that you were onto something. You weren't.

It wasn't disinformation.  They were facts that you didn't find helpful for your argument, and although you're right that it requires proper context and further parsing, that's what the other two charts provided.  You only came back to them after I pressed you to respond, highlighting how you accuse me of cherry picking data while buffoonishly ignoring the additional data I provided.      

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

4) In your own chart, people between 40-50 had worse outcomes after vaxing. Your own charts also showed that people under 50 don't need the vax at all. Vaxed or unvaxed they were all fine. 

That's the point you want to try to argue?  You think that the chart shows death rates for age 40-50 is lower for unvaccinated folk, and this single data point is somehow more relevant than how hospitalizations and death rates are higher for every other age group?  Talk about cherry picking! 

What's really funny is that you've fallen victim to optical illusion.  If you looked at the link I included, the 40-50 age group had 2x the rate of death of people who'd completed their primary series of vaccines, and infinity times higher death rates than people who'd received the boosters.  What looks like a smaller bar to you is in fact only so because they used a faint colour that blends in with the graph axis.  Whoops!  ?

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

5) Your charts also ignored underlying health conditions, which is a bigger risk factor than age. 

This doesn't help your thesis, unless you want to argue that unvaccinated people have more underlying health conditions which skewed their deaths and hospitalizations higher.  

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

6) Also, the number of unvaxed people in that age category is so small that a few outliers can skew it wildly. People who are so sick that they couldn't risk side-effects or that they didn't want to extend their lives would fall right into the "negative outcome" category. 

In 80 plus?  Yes, the exceedingly few unvaccinated super-old people could skew that data, but that's why we include all of the other age groups!  ?

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Grow up moonbox, and put me back on ignore if you want to. I'd expect no less from someone so determined to remain ignorant. 

Don't worry. You were never taken off ignore, and you'll get no further responses from me here.  Your tedious squawking and self-deluding mental gymnastics aren't even valid entertainment anymore.  ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hodad said:

We've had a nice break and I'm ready to talk again without immediately joining you in the insults. ?  You are talking about all kinds of stuff that doesn't matter. I have a third grader who is getting into more and more word problems in his math homework, and he is constantly tripping over the extra numbers that they slip in--the ones that aren't essential to the problem. That kind of thing is not restricted to math homework though, happens all through life and it's exactly what's happening to you. 

Forget about summers and flu seasons, total deaths last month and the raw number of multi-vaxxed people and when and for how long anyone has been vaxxed. None of that stuff matters. It's all extranea. None of it speaks directly to efficacy. 

In terms of outcomes, what constitutes efficacy? It's pretty straightforward. If an individual is vaccinated and contracts COVID, are they less likely to become severely ill (hospitalized) or die than if they had not been vaccinated. And if so, how much? Basic question: did the vaccine work for this person?

That's it. You don't need any other questions to get at outcome efficacy. So, how would you actually measure it? 

Ideally, you'd have multiple versions of the same person and could address on an individual level with controlled testing, but obviously that's not possible. We're talking about the real world. Next best option is to track outcomes in groups of similar people, i.e. stratified by risk to compare like to like. We can't quite do that because individual risk is difficult to get from the data that is collected. But age is a pretty good proxy and would be an appropriate way to compare the outcomes. That is indeed the best viable scenario in the real world. 

Can we at least all agree on that much?

In a perfect world you'd have groups of similar people vaccinated and unvaccinated but that's not the case at all right now. The % of people vaxed and unvaxed in each health demographic varies greatly depending on their own situation.

Even taking age into account can be very misleading, because it stands to reason that healthy people 80+ who have a lot to live for will be more likely to vax than the ones who have stage 4 cancer or are homeless.

In any event, we don't need the "case outcome" or "case outcome by age" information at all because 1) It's heavily dependent on the % of people in the group with underlying health conditions, and we don't have access to those stats at all, and 2) we can compare the whole population of Canada from 2021 to the whole population of Canada after 85% of us vaxed to get a much better understanding of vax efficacy. 

And yes, when we do that it's extremely important to compare flu seasons to flu seasons and summer months to summer months because covid deaths follow the seasonal flu trends. 

Theoretically, after giving the 85% of the population that's most at-risk from covid, giving them an 80% better chance at survival, our covid death toll should have gone down to 32% of what it was, all other things being equal ( and no, I haven't tripped or slipped in numbers, but thanks for the cutesy little insult). You could make a case that "it's a new variant", you could also make a case that "it's less and less of a 'novel virus' every month" and also "covid culled the herd" to some extent before any vaxing took place -  ie, the vaxed people who died in 2022 actually had a chance to die in 2020 and 2021 as well when they were unvaxed, but they survived.

In any event, deaths weren't down by anywhere near 68%, so it's a moot point. Deaths didn't go down one iota. And it's not "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" that maintaining the covid death toll either - that was a lie by Biden and Trudeau - the vaxed are experiencing their exact fair share of covid deaths.

So when you pair the fact that covid deaths didn't go down at all after vaxing with the fact that vaxed people die in the exact same proportion as tinfoil hat people would die, you have a recipe for Pflacebo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In a perfect world you'd have groups of similar people vaccinated and unvaccinated but that's not the case at all right now. The % of people vaxed and unvaxed in each health demographic varies greatly depending on their own situation.

Even taking age into account can be very misleading, because it stands to reason that healthy people 80+ who have a lot to live for will be more likely to vax than the ones who have stage 4 cancer or are homeless.

In any event, we don't need the "case outcome" or "case outcome by age" information at all because 1) It's heavily dependent on the % of people in the group with underlying health conditions, and we don't have access to those stats at all, and 2) we can compare the whole population of Canada from 2021 to the whole population of Canada after 85% of us vaxed to get a much better understanding of vax efficacy. 

And yes, when we do that it's extremely important to compare flu seasons to flu seasons and summer months to summer months because covid deaths follow the seasonal flu trends. 

Theoretically, after giving the 85% of the population that's most at-risk from covid, giving them an 80% better chance at survival, our covid death toll should have gone down to 32% of what it was, all other things being equal ( and no, I haven't tripped or slipped in numbers, but thanks for the cutesy little insult). You could make a case that "it's a new variant", you could also make a case that "it's less and less of a 'novel virus' every month" and also "covid culled the herd" to some extent before any vaxing took place -  ie, the vaxed people who died in 2022 actually had a chance to die in 2020 and 2021 as well when they were unvaxed, but they survived.

In any event, deaths weren't down by anywhere near 68%, so it's a moot point. Deaths didn't go down one iota. And it's not "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" that maintaining the covid death toll either - that was a lie by Biden and Trudeau - the vaxed are experiencing their exact fair share of covid deaths.

So when you pair the fact that covid deaths didn't go down at all after vaxing with the fact that vaxed people die in the exact same proportion as tinfoil hat people would die, you have a recipe for Pflacebo.

No, you are absolutely tripping over random extranea. No, the "flu season" doesn't matter. Nor percents of vaxxed vs unvaxed. Nor total deaths or deaths last month.  Nor any of the other nonsense. Again, what matters is if individuals who have been vaccinated are any less likely to become severely ill or die.  That's it. That's the only question in terms of outcome efficacy. 

If you're talking about the motivation of extreme marginal cases like the homeless or stage 4 cancer patients named Bill who had a cough last week it's a red flag that you're in trouble. We don't need to know about every Bill in the world or his specific health history. That's what proxies are for. And you can see that age stratification works well by looking at the pre-vaccine outcomes. We can see big jumps in negative outcomes with increasing age--and we don't need Bill's medical records to do it. And, we can compare the same age groups post vaccination to see if there is any change in outcome. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

DING DING DING Ta Daa tada   HOOT HOOT HOOT

WESTCANMAN wins the Anti Vaxer Trophy

For taking more than 900 posts to try and convince others he is right.

? ? ?

I wonder if he put as much effort into 9/11 truthing?  Presumably he honed his internet skills with that before taking on the COVID issue.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hodad said:

No, you are absolutely tripping over random extranea.

Like a Gordian Knot of string and pins in a big pool of hooey.

I'll never forget the time I was long-lining dog fish and halibut and the line came up in a ball of about 150 leaders, snaps, hooks, bait, fish... it was blowing out, with big waves, a strong cross tide and a sick deckhand.  Extranea?  It was a fricken' mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I wonder if he put as much effort into 9/11 truthing?  Presumably he honed his internet skills with that before taking on the COVID issue.

He got booted from CTA for falling back to old ways too often

(CTA - Conspiracy Theorists Anonymous)

He took the red pill.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/qanon-anti-vax-covid-vaccine-conspiracy-theory-1125197/

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01728-z

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

It wasn't disinformation

It was absolute disinformation.

It is the epitome of the 'base rate fallacy' that leftists like to cite when they're in a hole and they don't have any facts.

It situated the: 

"% of Canada's total covid deaths that came from 4xers between Dec 14th 2020 to Sept 25th" beside the 

"% of Canada's total covid deaths that came from unvaxed between Dec 14th 2020 to Sept 25th".

One of those groups had an avg of 2M people in it for 5 months during the summer. The other group had 38M people in it for the first covid flu season and it had at least 6M people in for a second flu season, and altogether it was exposed to covid for 22 months. 

Citing the % of Canada's total covid deaths that came from 4xers between Dec 14th 2020 to Sept 25th is just an abomination of a stat, period. The fact that they have a measurable amount of deaths is actually alarming, because people with 4 flu shots should almost never die in the summer. 

Quote

That's the point you want to try to argue?  You think that the chart shows death rates for age 40-50 is lower for unvaccinated folk, and this single data point is somehow more relevant than how hospitalizations and death rates are higher for every other age group?  Talk about cherry picking! 

It might seem like small potatoes to you, but you're easily fooled.

FYI the number of people between 40-50, the group I circled, is actually an extremely large population compared to the 80+ crowd, approximately 3x as many, and it's about 260x as many people as there are in the "unvaxed over 80" group which features prominently in your "gotcha" graph.

2066942788_ScreenShot2022-11-17at1_48_25PM.thumb.png.18ee8adcbcb9ed91edb5ffa6fe8092af.png

Here's more math that you won't understand: people 80+ only account for about 5% of the population (4.6% actually), and about 99% of them are vaccinated. That mens that (5% x 1/99 = ) 0.05% of Canadians are in the "80+ and unvaxed" group.

Quote

What's really funny is that you've fallen victim to optical illusion.  If you looked at the link I included, the 40-50 age group had 2x the rate of death of people who'd completed their primary series of vaccines, and infinity times higher death rates than people who'd received the boosters.  What looks like a smaller bar to you is in fact only so because they used a faint colour that blends in with the graph axis.  Whoops!  ?

What's really funny is that you're actually wrong by a hilarious margin. The number of deaths with "primary series completed" is higher. 

980419361_ScreenShot2022-11-17at2_04_35PM.png.14e659efdc459a22f70dc143351fa65c.png

There have also been a lot of 3xers and 4xers dying over the summer, as evidenced by the fact that 3xers had the most deaths of anyone from Aug - Sept, and 4xers were second. 

Quote

This doesn't help your thesis, unless you want to argue that unvaccinated people have more underlying health conditions which skewed their deaths and hospitalizations higher.  

The "unvaxed over 80" group is tiny. People over 80 have wildly differing life expectancies, anywhere from 1 week to 10 years. Your stats are zoning in on that demographic like it's the key to understanding covid when it's actually the group that's the most prone, by far, to having a massive number of outliers in it. 

Quote

In 80 plus?  Yes, the exceedingly few unvaccinated super-old people could skew that data, but that's why we include all of the other age groups!

And in the other age groups, the vaccine isn't doing nearly as well. In fact, in the extremely large 40-50 group, which has less health fluctuations than the 80+ group, the dbl-vaxed are doing worse than the unvaxed

Quote

Don't worry. You were never taken off ignore, and you'll get no further responses from me here.  Your tedious squawking and self-deluding mental gymnastics aren't even valid entertainment anymore.  

If I was just here to read people's posts based on their relative merits then you'd have been on ignore from day 1. I only allow your posts in my page because it's important to squash the disinformation that people like you post. 

If we're keeping score, my stats include the entire country from 1 year when we were all unvaxed compared to the next year when we were 85% vaxed. 

Your stats are limited to comparing the number of deaths from 2M people in one summer to the number of deaths among 38M people in a flu season, plus the 0.05% of Canadians who are unvaxed over 80.

My stats are chosen based on their ability to inform people about how many people are still dying and where all the deaths are coming from, your stats are chosen based on their ability to mislead. 

I think we're done here Moonbox. There's no more floor left to wipe up with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, you are absolutely tripping over random extranea. No, the "flu season" doesn't matter.

Dum, de dummm dummmmm....

925477954_CovidDeathsTimelineOriginal.thumb.png.92627aeb65640d26281727dc8346df20.png

Are you telling me that you can't see the flu season trends on that graph?

Stop talking about stats right now ffs. You're off your rocker.

Quote

Nor percents of vaxxed vs unvaxed. Nor total deaths or deaths last month.  Nor any of the other nonsense. Again, what matters is if individuals who have been vaccinated are any less likely to become severely ill or die.  That's it. That's the only question in terms of outcome efficacy. 

Sure, but the best way to measure that is "how well did the exact same people fare after vaxing". 

Eg, "John Vaxtardia was unvaxed in 2021. He lived. He got 4 covid shots and died in 2022. The vax did not help John Vaxtardia." 

That's completely useful. It's a "John V vs John V" comparison. Times 38 million people. 

You want to focus on "How well does 0.05% of the population do, in the demographic that's completely loaded with outliers?"

Or "How many people died in one summer from this group, which avg'ed 2M people, compared to the number of people who died from this group of 38M people during a flu season?" And yes, flu season is relevant, and if you don't get it, just stay silent because you're just losing credibility every time you talk. 

Quote

If you're talking about the motivation of extreme marginal cases like 

Dude, the whole 80+ crowd fluctuates wildly regarding health and life expectancy. Draw a name from a hat and there's a good chance that they'll die before you can read it, while some others will live 20 more years. 

And a lot of the people who are about to die know that they're about to die. Why would they vax in that instance? 

FWIW my father-in-law died of dementia. They die from losing the ability to swallow, among other things. While he was dying, literally on palliative care, they kept nose-swabbing him for covid daily. It hurt back then, they jabbed the cotton way back. It was also pointless. They just wanted to turn him into a stat. 

As far as we know they didn't mark him down as a covid death, because he didn't have it, but they seemed serious about lumping him in there. 

I haven't got much respect or patience for the covid fear porn crowd. I think they're shit people.

In my nearly three years of covid I've seen far more excess suffering from young people than covid sufferers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Dum, de dummm dummmmm....

925477954_CovidDeathsTimelineOriginal.thumb.png.92627aeb65640d26281727dc8346df20.png

Are you telling me that you can't see the flu season trends on that graph?

Stop talking about stats right now ffs. You're off your rocker.

No, regardless of trend, I'm telling you it's utterly irrelevant to outcome efficacy. Whether 1000 people have COVID or 1,000,000 people have COVID, whether infections are steady or display seasonality, you measure efficacy in the exact same way: are the individuals who have COVID faring better with vaccines? Are they less likely to become severely ill or to die?

That's it. One simple question. How do you not understand this? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, regardless of trend, I'm telling you it's utterly irrelevant to outcome efficacy. Whether 1000 people have COVID or 1,000,000 people have COVID, whether infections are steady or display seasonality, you measure efficacy in the exact same way: are the individuals who have COVID faring better with vaccines? Are they less likely to become severely ill or to die?

That's it. One simple question. How do you not understand this? 

 

 

The whole "get vaxxed!" narrative is out the window now. Nobody seems to give a heck. Recently the Canadian government disposed of 1M unused doses, and sent more unused doses to other nations. But even there it's not being taken up much when offered. Apparently people don't like vaccines in those countries.

It's a fact that immigrants and minorities are the most vax-hesitant, in both Canada and the US. But the government doesn't like to say this.

Meanwhile in the UK and some EU countries they have stopped giving the shot to younger people, recognizing there's not much benefit because of their strong natural immunity. Risks negate the level of benefit. But of course blah blah blah, if there are mitigating factors, etc.

I say go get a shot if you want. Fill your boots. I won't be doing that for Covid, or masking ever again.

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

On top of all that, we're not being told much about how many are dying right now from these non-covid respiratory infections. Because we all know what we have done to ourselves. This is a self-inflicted epidemic brought on by poor decisions from political "health" leaders. That's why they don't want an inquiry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

No, regardless of trend, I'm telling you it's utterly irrelevant to outcome efficacy. Whether 1000 people have COVID or 1,000,000 people have COVID, whether infections are steady or display seasonality, you measure efficacy in the exact same way: are the individuals who have COVID faring better with vaccines? Are they less likely to become severely ill or to die?

That's it. One simple question. How do you not understand this? 

That would make sense with snake bites, but everyone was exposed to covid. 

Whether or not they got infected, or sick, depends a lot on their natural or vax-induced immunity. That's a major part of the equation which you are trying to ignore. 

The population of Canada was exposed in 2020, 2021, and 2022. What happened once 85% of us vaxed? Did it get us to herd immunity? Did deaths go down? 

Remember, herd immunity and "you won't get infected" were both on the bill of sale. We locked down, masked up, stayed out of restaurants, forced young people to vax, and what did it get us, Hodad?

What good did the vax do for the people who got it?

 

Bottom line:

85.7% of covid deaths came from the multi-jabbed. 

Covid deaths in our country weren't affected by mass-jabbinations. 

Stop trying to define vaccine efficacy by someone's arbitrary definition of "how many cases there were per death", we count noses and toe tags. Everything else is trivia, and everything that comes from a lab is suspect nowadays.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

On top of all that, we're not being told much about how many are dying right now from these non-covid respiratory infections. Because we all know what we have done to ourselves. This is a self-inflicted epidemic brought on by poor decisions from political "health" leaders. That's why they don't want an inquiry.

Danielle Smith just fired the entire AHS health board.  11 bigwigs.

It's a great start.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Stop trying to define vaccine efficacy by someone's arbitrary definition of "how many cases there were per death", we count noses and toe tags. Everything else is trivia, and everything that comes from a lab is suspect nowadays.  

There's nothing arbitrary about it. If you want to evaluate whether the vaccines affect COVID mortality there is literally no other question to ask. That's it. Is an individual who contracts COVID likely to fare better after vaccination? Are they less likely to become seriously ill or to die?

 

You want to just count "toe tags," but that's very faulty logic. It brings in a lot of variables and noise that not only aren't necessary to answer the question of vaccine efficacy, but also likely to bring you to the wrong conclusion. 

Again, I'll illustrate with the automotive example. In the US, shoulder belts became mandatory in 1968, yet the next year and every year after, fatalities increased. The 1969 version of you is just counting toe tags and would say that shoulder belts were ineffective or negatively effective at saving lives. Pointless big government mandates costing us and killing us!

^^ Reading that in 2022, especially given what we know about seat belts, your neurons should be firing coming up with a dozen different reasons why that logic sucks. Were more people driving? How far were they driving? Were there more accidents? Were cars designed differently in other ways? Was it a bad winter? Etc. And you'd be right to be asking those questions, and then hopefully looking for a cleaner way to answer the core question. What might we examine instead to get rid of all that extranea. -- What if we looked at individual accidents to see whether use of a shoulder belt resulted in fewer fatalities per accident? 

And that's exactly what you should be doing regarding vaccine efficacy. Your brain should be firing off reasons that counting toe tags is not a smart way to approach the question. How can we get past all the noise of a busy, inconstant world to see whether or not vaccines save lives?

It's an easy answer and I've given it many times. You look at the COVID cases, you look at vaccine status, ideally you control for risk, and then you look at the differences in the outcomes. We have the data and we have the answer--there would be a lot more toe tags to count without the vaccine-- but for whatever reason (likely political) you are dead-set on clinging to poor logic. The barrier at this point is simply obsinance. 

 

 

Edited by Hodad
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
      10,745
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

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