🇳🇱
@mystik you were never in the south, weren't?
I mean, the real south, no the one with Sherman's neckties 
@mystik @TruthAndFreedom @freemo @ew
It was great to chat with you guys. Here is a few donut for you all!
It make sense. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are new technology.
I would say that if someone want to get vaccinated and are still afraid, try with the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca (false alarm at trombosis) vaccines.
Those vaccines are classic vaccines. Old fashion vaccines for COVID19.
In fact Johnson & Johnson vaccine have fantastic metrics.
For old people the best ones are AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. The last one is authorized and available.
100% dosis will not be due until 2023 minimum because studies are 3 years long (as fast, they could last longer).
@TruthAndFreedom @freemo @ew
Karma is a bitch, you know?
On the contrary. My parents are already vaccinated. They are 90+ yo. They got the first dosis. They are OK.
At the same time, if someone refuse the vaccine... all good. It is voluntary.
Risking permanent paralysis over a fucking flu.
I have seen no good evidence to suggest the vaccine causes paralysis in the short term. Any short term health concerns from the vaccine of any significant concern are very unlikely or nonexistant.
The risks are simply long-term unknowns, not short term risks, those are mostly accounted for.
yes @ vaccine risks.
Same with the virus. We are bias. We associate COVID with effects similar to flu because both attack breathing system.
But we do not know the long effects of covid. If any.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/death-by-influenza_b_4661442.html
"U.S. data on influenza deaths are a mess," states a 2005 article in the British Medical Journal entitled "Are U.S. flu death figures more PR than science?" This article takes issue with the 36,000 flu-death figure commonly claimed, and with describing "influenza/pneumonia" as the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.
"But why are flu and pneumonia bundled together?" the article asks. "Is the relationship so strong or unique to warrant characterizing them as a single cause of death?"
The article's answer is no. Most pneumonia deaths are unrelated to influenza. For example, "stomach acid suppressing drugs are associated with a higher risk of community-acquired pneumonia, but such drugs and pneumonia are not compiled as a single statistic," explained Dr. David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services. "People don't necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus -- the viraemia. What they die of is a secondary pneumonia."
What the fuck are you on about.. I read it, why are you pretending to be psychic and telling me what I did and did not read... I asked you if you are asking me a question about what you posted. Are you trying to ask **me** while they are bundled, you seemed to answer your own question so im asking what are you asking me? Or are you going to deflect again and tell me I didnt read ?
As I stated before your talking about a data set that I didnt een use to come up with the figure I stated.. so any inaccuracies in it really isnt relevant to the assertion in the first place, im not using the source your accusing, so its moot.
Second, the number of cases are irrelevant, my statement is about your chance of survival if you catch the diseases (mortality rate) and therefore is uneffected by the number of people in the general population who get the diseases.
Third, when calculating mortality to ensure we get utmost accuracy we use a more restrictive dataset that only inclues the people who are actually tested to ensure we are measuring influenza or covid.
>when calculating mortality to ensure we get utmost accuracy
your anecdotal science is bullshit that can't accurately predict anything.
https://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2021/01/has-covid-led-to-increase-in-all-cause.html
Umm ok, I guess that explains why "no one ever debunked your link"... apparently lots of people do you just pretend like they didnt and then go one some tantrum that makes no sense... cool seems we are at an impasse then, im not sure your capable of understanding why your wrong no matter what I say.
No thats not what I said... I will repeat the rebuke a second time since your too emotional to see it..
All your concerns and the link were directed at the CDC's data set.. true or not, I (and the scientists I trust) did not use the data set or the process you accused of being inaccurate. Therefore I was able to arrive at my conclusion without any of your concerns being relevant since they apply to a data set I did not use.
There, now understand why your point was so easily dismissed? Or are you still going to pretend you dont understand why your whole argument and the article has no relevance to my statement?
by using tests that are able to determine if they have the disease combines with the circumstances of the death which tends to involve a second test to show the viral load had increased since the first, and by monitoring symptoms...
When someone is in the ICU from falling down th steps they will have very different symptoms then if they are there because the virus has progressed, the viral load will also be different.
https://nationalfile.com/inventor-of-pcr-test-said-fauci-doesnt-know-anything-and-is-willing-to-lie-on-television/
There are countless different types of tests that can be employed, I did not state what test was used, which shows why you are not a reliable person to discuss this with. Instead of **asking** what test was used and the reliability of the test you just cherry picked some noise about some random test without any understanding if it was even the test involved in the analysis I described.. can you not see how that makes you an unreliable source of any judgement on this?
From the article in the section about medicine:
"Out of 49 medical studies from 1990–2003 with more than 1000 citations, 45 claimed that the studied therapy was effective. Out of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.["
In other words only 16% of studies couldnt be replicated, and 84% of them could either be replicated, or the final results agreed with the study and the study actually **downplayed** their results such that it showed a greater success rate than claimed...
On the psychology thing, this is an amusing/poignant comparison of the scientific relevance of parapsychology versus psychology research.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/
1516263574248.jpeg
I thought you were done with me... I see your not the brightest bulb in the batch, tagging me is the exact opposite of "being done with me". I think what you meant is "I will now have a temper tantrum and go full snowflake because facts make me mad"
Yea you've replied to me several times actually. I know reality is tricky for you, but your actually replying to me right now, just like you did in the previous message, and many times before that.
You are like biden, you barely even know where you are or what your doing, HA!
