@mystik you were never in the south, weren't?

I mean, the real south, no the one with Sherman's neckties :awesome:

@TruthAndFreedom @freemo @ew

@mystik

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.

@TruthAndFreedom @freemo @ew

@mystik

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

@pthenq1 @TruthAndFreedom @freemo @ew You are trying to kill more people, aren't you?

Karma is a bitch, you know?

@mystik

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.

@TruthAndFreedom @freemo @ew

@pthenq1

Most people who get the vaccine will be fine. If there are medical issues we wont see it for many months down the line

@mystik @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @ew

@freemo @pthenq1 @TruthAndFreedom @ew This is an idiotic comment.
Risking permanent paralysis over a fucking flu.

@mystik

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.

@TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @pthenq1 @ew

@freemo

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.

@mystik @TruthAndFreedom @ew

@pthenq1

COVID is about 10x worse than the flu.. not the end of the world, but bad enough to take seriously.

@mystik @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @ew

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom @freemo @mystik @pthenq1 i've never seen someone seriously reply to that article bet he'll avoid it

@ew

Its pretty easy to respond to really. Neither I nor most data scientists rely on CDC data at all. It is one tiny blip across countless data sets and only when they all agree do we draw conclusions from it.

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@ew

sorry to disappoint your psychic abilities but I sure did. In fact its a rather old article and isnt even the first time I came across it

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@freemo @cowanon @TruthAndFreedom @mystik @pthenq1 Even that 500 figure for the U.S. could be too high, according to analyses in authoritative journals such as the American Journal of Public Health and the British Medical Journal. Only about 15-20 per cent of people who come down with flu-like symptoms have the influenza virus -- the other 80-85 per cent actually caught rhinovirus or other germs that are indistinguishable from the true flu without laboratory tests, which are rarely done. In 2001, a year in which death certificates listed 257 Americans as having died of flu, only 18 were positively identified as true flus. The other 239 were simply assumed to be flus and most likely had few true flus among them.

"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."

@ew

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 ?

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@freemo @cowanon @TruthAndFreedom @mystik @pthenq1 36,000 flu deaths in 2001 was actually 500, but it was actually 18 deaths. what exactly does "10x more deadly than the flu" even mean? where did all the flu deaths go? why has the flu been eradicated? what is the replication crisis and why are 70% of all studies false?

@ew

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.

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@freemo @cowanon @TruthAndFreedom @mystik @pthenq1 10x 18 people is 180 deaths

>when calculating mortality to ensure we get utmost accuracy
your anecdotal science is bullshit that can't accurately predict anything.

@ew

Taking large samples of people and testing them to objectively verify how many have the disease, then track who survives is not anecdotal, that would be the exact opposite of anecdotal actually.

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@freemo @cowanon @TruthAndFreedom @mystik @pthenq1 it is not objective, it is anecdotal research, and 70% of studies are false. the overall death rate has not budged. you have not addressed a single point I've made you have just been telling me to believe in your cult

https://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2021/01/has-covid-led-to-increase-in-all-cause.html

@ew

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.

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@freemo @cowanon @TruthAndFreedom @mystik @pthenq1 you have yet to rebuke a single point I've made so far, you just go "we analyzed the data hurr durr"

@ew

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?

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@freemo @cowanon @TruthAndFreedom @mystik @pthenq1 how do you get a dataset that proves someone would have died specifically due to the cold and not the flu or tripping down stairs

@ew

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.

@cowanon @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @mystik @pthenq1

@Coyote I have a theory about the vaccines that I’ve never heard anyone else voice anywhere. It’s not that it’s pure genius, amazing, or astounding. It’s really simple. No one says it. (I’m sure someone somewhere has, I’ve just never seen them.) @ew @TruthAndFreedom @cowanon @freemo @mystik @pthenq1

@polarisera @epic @TruthAndFreedom @cowanon @ew @freemo @mystik @pthenq1

I’m so lost on what point you are trying to make. Can you walk us through it?

As in, “Ecological Inference Problem” “Trust the Science or your a Nazi” vs. “That’s not science, your a Marxist!” That comes to mind as the relevant example, am I reading you wrong?

I’m lost, Markov implies random, and the pathological behaviors inciting political decision are not random. The behaviors and actions are far more predictable, they are pathological.

That plague “authoritarian pseudo-science” lost me. Why should a problem that plagues pseudo-science be of any concern? It’s not science, and until it makes a logical basis in fact, should not be considered as an influencing factor by anyone other than the pathological, who are the root of the problem, because they were not taught solid math and logic skills under the modern educational constructs created by, well, Marxists.

I’m jumping in a bit late here, but some of these posts look like buzzword bingo, and I’m trying to sort out who’s actually making a point. I think you had one, but I think it’s obscured in context. Would like to understand this proposed question better so that it could be addressed intelligently.

Follow

@Coyote

You are arguing with a bunch of idiots who want to beleive their smart but never did any hard work to actually learn anything. So their ego convinces them "learning is the devil" and then they pretend to be smart despite knowing nothing... if you are trying to make intellectual sense of it you will never succeed because these are people who are just lashing out because they are ashamed at being a nobody who knows nothing and isnt willing to do the hard work to change that but still feels they deserve the credit.

@epic @TruthAndFreedom@masthead.social @pthenq1 @mystik @cowanon @ew @polarisera

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.