CDC will not publish report showing COVID vaccine effectiveness

[John Stone]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

I said your idea of science leads to schemes like the one hatched by these two degenerates: 

https://www.ksl.com/article/51487161/utah-couple-charged-with-kidnapping-taking-10-year-old-to-cuba

What part of your idea of science are you not getting? 

See, your remark in this thread doesn't mean shit. The reason your remark in this thread doesn't mean shit is because your idea of science leads to schemes like the one hatched by the two scumbags in that article.

You have no credibility. 

Get it? 

............. did the scumbags have any med creds re: science or were they Kool-Aid drinkers. 😄

[Deluge]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Never say "science" lol. 

Leftists have as much scientific knowledge and understanding as the average kindergartener. 

If I have any questions about baskets, pedophile prophets or gay sex, you're the first person I will come to. 

And they parrot that word as if "left-wing" and "science" were the same word. lol

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, John Stone said:

............. did the scumbags have any med creds re: science or were they Kool-Aid drinkers. 😄

They're just like you. They believe gender affirmation is legitimate science.

Are you saying that you think gender affirmation is not supported by science? 

[Legato]

[John Stone]

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Never say "science" lol. 

Leftists have as much scientific knowledge and understanding as the average kindergartener. 

If I have any questions about baskets, pedophile prophets or gay sex, you're the first person I will come to. 

Why do u want knowledge on gay sex😄

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

They're just like you. They believe gender affirmation is legitimate science.

Are you saying that you think gender affirmation is not supported by science? 

I'll take ur answer as a no. 😄

[John Stone]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

They're just like you. They believe gender affirmation is legitimate science.

Are you saying that you think gender affirmation is not supported by science? 

I'll take ur answer as no! 😄

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Science is prevention - warts and all. 

Science is knowledge, understanding, theorizing, testing, and above all else, common sense. 

But it's also highly profitable, so it's prone to things like the covid-jab mandate scam. 

Quote

As of April 2025 the confirmed death toll attributed to Covid 19 stands at over 8 million.

The US official count was 1.2 million. 

On average, the "loss of life expectancy per person" was less than one year.

For that reason, covid deaths have nothing in common with things like Fentanyl deaths or cancer deaths. In the case of Fentanyl deaths, that number is probably closer to 40. FYI America loses more man-years from Fentanyl every 6 months than they lost from the entirety of covid.

Basically, if you were walking on the edge of your grave, covid could give you a nudge, that was it. Fentanyl kills 25 yr olds.

 

Do you really think that US and Chinese gov'ts really cared about the deaths of octogenarians, or did they honestly view them as a good thing?

You'll be surprised to learn the real answer. Hell, they barely care about fentanyl deaths, aside from Trump. 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, John Stone said:

I'll take ur answer as no! 😄

You're a leftist, so you take every written or spoken word to mean whatever you want it to, regardless of any and all facts. 

If I say 3 + 3 = 6, you could take that to mean: "All conservatives eat babies" if that's what CBC tells you. It's how you're wired. 

9 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Why do u want knowledge on gay sex😄

 

Seeing as I didn't ask you about it, I guess the answer is: "I don't". But hey, whatever blows your hair back. 

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, John Stone said:

 

I'm assuming ur aware of NBC

I'm more aware of it than you are of the Simpson's paradox in data manipulation.

[John Stone]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're a leftist, so you take every written or spoken word to mean whatever you want it to, regardless of any and all facts. 

If I say 3 + 3 = 6, you could take that to mean: "All conservatives eat babies" if that's what CBC tells you. It's how you're wired. 

Seeing as I didn't ask you about it, I guess the answer is: "I don't". But hey, whatever blows your hair back. 

 

I'll take ur word for 'don't'. 😄😄

[John Stone]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm more aware of it than you are of the Simpson's paradox in data manipulation.

For the uninformed. 😄

Simpsons paradox happens when a trend that appears in several subgroups of data reverses or disappears once those subgroups are combined. 

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're a leftist, so you take every written or spoken word to mean whatever you want it to, regardless of any and all facts. 

If I say 3 + 3 = 6, you could take that to mean: "All conservatives eat babies" if that's what CBC tells you. It's how you're wired. 

Seeing as I didn't ask you about it, I guess the answer is: "I don't". But hey, whatever blows your hair back. 

re: 'I don't" - ur probably sporting a pudgy just thinking about it. 😄

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, John Stone said:

For the uninformed. 😄

Simpsons paradox happens when a trend that appears in several subgroups of data reverses or disappears once those subgroups are combined. 

You're an excellent googler.  A definition is a good start.

Now learn to recognize it in study data sets.  And statistics.

Edited April 24 by Goddess

[Goddess]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Science is knowledge, understanding, theorizing, testing, and above all else, common sense. 

The irony hurts my head every time one of these dolts brings up how they were "following the science".  Because every time I've pointed out the Simpson's paradoxes in data sets and stats, the propellers on their beanie caps stop working.

[Deluge]

19 minutes ago, John Stone said:

I'll take ur answer as no! 😄

The question hasn't been answered yet because my question is more relevant and needs to be answered first. 

Again: Are you saying that you think gender affirmation is not supported by science? 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The irony hurts my head every time one of these dolts brings up how they were "following the science".  Because every time I've pointed out the Simpson's paradoxes in data sets and stats, the propellers on their beanie caps stop working.

Here's the thing: if the term you're using has never been the CNN buzzword of the day, then none of them have ever heard it before, and they will think of it as witchcraft.

If it has been the CNN buzzword of the day, then they will throw it into all of their Dunning-Kruger word salads, but they will act like you threw holy water in their face if you use the word on them.

Remember when left4rds were all trying to use the word "sedition" 😂 "Trump seditiously took a crap!" or "My cat seditioned a bird with ONE CLAW!"

Or confirmation bias/cognitive dissonance? I bet that robo still goes on other forums trying to use those ones, with all the success of a chihuahua trying to hump a speeding van.

Small sample size? Base-rate fallacy?🤣 

Hell, they can't even get "woman" or "vaccine" right and they're trying to use compound words from university courses that no one in their family has ever had high enough marks to get into.

[John Stone]

53 minutes ago, Deluge said:

The question hasn't been answered yet because my question is more relevant and needs to be answered first. 

Again: Are you saying that you think gender affirmation is not supported by science? 

 

 

I'm saying vax is supported by science and decades of statistics. 

[User]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Did it?

This is the data for Ontario, mid-2022.    When you add the Full Vaccinated and Partially Vaccinated together, it looks even worse for your claim.

Ontario data has been used in quite a few studies.

Yes, it did. 

What do you think this picture shows?

-First, a large chunk is not identified, so how are you drawing any conclusions from this?

-Second, it is a raw data vs percentages game with the data AGAIN. When a significant portion of the population is vaccinated, more will be hospitalized, and this has ZERO to do with rates. 

If 100 people are vaccinated, and 10 people are not vaccinated, if you have 40 unvaccinated in the hospital and 60 vaccinated... you would be on here trying to say look how bad this look because there are more vaccinated in the hospital! No, a far less rate of them are. 

This also is void of any other data such as how severe it is, death, or outcomes. It is also just a snapshot in time... on and on and on. 

 

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You're an excellent googler.  A definition is a good start.

Now learn to recognize it in study data sets.  And statistics.

haha ................ def not req'd here ........... I don't put faith in those that can supposedly explain the contents of a jar but can't figure out how to take the lid off. 

Science is crucial to healthcare, /  advancement (science is  the oxygen of evidence based approach to healthcare).

 

 

[Deluge]

19 minutes ago, John Stone said:

I'm saying vax is supported by science and decades of statistics. 

No, you're trying to use science to scare people into getting vaccinations. That's why you said some shit about kids getting disfigured or some bullshit when they get older. lol

Vaccinations are nice for some people but not necessary for everyone.  

 

[User]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

The facts for the population at large is that the vast majority survived COVID. 

Um, sure, the vast majority survived... as millions died. Millions were severely ill and sick. 

What is your point?

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

Maybe COVID burns down people with a weak constitution, or maybe people who already have health issues. COVID killed my dad's friend, but I believe he was already having some health issues. 

So... screw him? Or do you admit that the COVID vaccine works well for people like him to reduce his risk or just really screw him and better for him to have died than take the COVID vaccine?

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

I had COVID and it lasted about 2 days. The swine flu knocked me on my ass for at least two weeks and there was ZERO national emergency for it. 

Once again, millions died. COVID evolved over time, the initial strains were much more highly contagious and deadly. You are looking back with hindsight at something and ignoring how bad it was initially and how unknown it was initially. 

To say there was zero national emergency need for it is just absurd and ignorant on its face. 

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

I got my standard shots as a kid. I got one flu shot while in the military and got sick anyways - in fact I was out of it for days. I haven't had a shot of any kind since. 

The point is, COVID was an overreaction more than anything else. 

Do you support getting those other vaccines?

There was a lot of overreaction to COVID, but you are guilty of just the opposite now which is just as bad the other way. You are downplaying it to absurd lengths. 

 

[Deluge]

Just now, User said:

Um, sure, the vast majority survived... as millions died. Millions were severely ill and sick. 

What is your point?

So... screw him? Or do you admit that the COVID vaccine works well for people like him to reduce his risk or just really screw him and better for him to have died than take the COVID vaccine?

Once again, millions died. COVID evolved over time, the initial strains were much more highly contagious and deadly. You are looking back with hindsight at something and ignoring how bad it was initially and how unknown it was initially. 

To say there was zero national emergency need for it is just absurd and ignorant on its face. 

Do you support getting those other vaccines?

There was a lot of overreaction to COVID, but you are guilty of just the opposite now which is just as bad the other way. You are downplaying it to absurd lengths. 

 

I'm sorry dude, COVID is YOUR boogeyman, not mine. 

I liked Trump's original response before COVID cultists pulled their hair out and shit their pants. 

I washed my hands, kept good hygiene and wore a mask where it was required - that was good enough for me. 

[John Stone]

14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No, you're trying to use science to scare people into getting vaccinations. That's why you said some shit about kids getting disfigured or some bullshit when they get older. lol

Vaccinations are nice for some people but not necessary for everyone.  

 

They're necessary to prevent the spread of disease.......... on a logarithmic scale. 

I agree, ya can take a donkey to water but ya can't force him to drink. 😁

 

Edited April 24 by John Stone

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, User said:

First, a large chunk is not identified,

A large chunk of what is not identified?

18 minutes ago, User said:

When a significant portion of the population is vaccinated, more will be hospitalized, and this has ZERO to do with rates. 

Ya, I remember us having this conversation before.  You believe that that once a significant portion of the population is vaccinated against something, the reasonable view is that there will be MORE of them in hospital or dead.  I've argued with you ad nauseum on this.  That's not how vaccination is supposed to work.  It's the whole point of them.  You don't get to claim the vaccines are so effective that they reduced hospitalization and death and also argue that when they don't, it's proof they're working.  I can't be the only one here that sees the absurdity of your statement:

"When a significant portion of the population is vaccinated, more of them will be hospitalized."

25 minutes ago, User said:

This also is void of any other data such as how severe it is, death, or outcomes

Well, I would say hospitalization is an outcome.

And a death would be severe.

So I'm not sure how you're claiming it's void of that data. What severity or outcome are you looking for?

This is a data set.  It's what researchers use as a basis for further study.  Such as your other questions, which is basically you criticizing a data set for not answering the questions that a study would.

 Are you looking for how severe the symptoms were that required hospitalization? You need to know details of each hospitalization?  Fever, seizure, neuropathy?

The data set shows number of deaths for each group - vaccinated, unvaccinated, partly vaccinated and unknown.  What is the further information you need on deaths?

I think you're mixing up a data set and a study.

Asking for study information to be in a data set is a pretty lame way of criticizing the data set.

[User]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

In summer of 2022 "almost 90% of covid deaths were occurring among the multi-vaxed population". That is a fact that I have proven over and over again.

Once again... you just keep saying this over and over again, but every time I demand proof, you run away, then you repeat the lie again. 





 

[Goddess]

I also went through a lot of the paradoxes with you before and discussed confounders like the dry tinder effect, and you rejected them all, so I'm not really interested in arguing this again with you.

Just the argument that we should expect to see MORE deaths and hospitalizations after mass vaccination is.....I'm not going to dignify it by arguing it further.  It's outlandish.