🇳🇱
I doubt a single one of the COVID conspiracy theory nutters out there could even answer this quiz, and this is just the basic level.
@Eris You dont. But you do need to understand a topic if you expect to state facts about said topic.
@Eris Thanks for proving my point, that people too stupid to pass the above test will also be too stupid to assert actual facts correctly.
If it's not a fact, say how. If you can't say how, I'll assume you're full of shit.
@Eris I've addressed this topic in detail dozens of times on my time line. Every time the anti-vax morons just spew nonsense and ignore or arent smart enough to comprehend the reality. So yes at this point I stopped putting int he effort because its a waste of my time.
I didnt invite further discussion. Quite the opposite. The OP shows the basic level of knowledge a person needs to have before even approaching the subject, of which most anti-vaxers dont have. So it explicitly suggests people unable to pass the test DONT discuss it, the opposite of inviting it.
In that case you have a person defering to an expert. They dont understand the surgery or its technicals in any sense, they simply trust the risk assesment and details given to them by a professional. No different than with vaccines really, a person typically wont understand the subject, but they can defer to their doctors risk assesment and side effects and other details to make an informed decision despite not understanding the subject.
There are plenty of good reasons not to want to get vaccinated or to think it isnt safe enough or well tested yet. Thats not the issue. The issue is the morons who try to say its actually dangerous or killing people and spreading misinformation they clearly dont understand (like the usual lie about thousands of recorded deaths)
>Because its not true and is quite easy to show why.
Please do so.
>The lie about thousands of deaths comes from a misunderstanding of VARES, which does not actually list confirmed COVID deaths.
It's literally not possible to confirm a COVID death. Either way, you are assuming. If they are going to assume all respiratory illnesses are COVID deaths I see parity in assuming all VAERS are vaccine deaths.
If pharmacorps wanted a different standard of information they should have held themselves to one.
They never assumed all respirtory illness was covid. There are preliminary number reports (which is what your thinking of), then the final numbers that come in about 3 months later that actually only include cases of covid that are reasonably confirmed.
As for VARES. you only need to look at the VARES FAQ to understand that the law states any cases of hospitalization that happen within 14 days of being vaccinated, even those that are confirmed to not be related to COVID, must by law be reported to VARES. It has been stated many times over and right there on the FAQ that the VARES deaths are **not** a listing of people who died from vaccination. it is a listing of people who died within 14 days of being given a shot for any reason.
>They never assumed all respirtory illness was covid.
They still are. "Reasonably confirmed" just means that they decided it was COVID. Anyone who comes into an ER with respiratory issues and gets a positive PCR test is "reasonably confirmed."
>you only need to look at the VARES FAQ to understand that the law states any cases of hospitalization that happen within 14 days of being vaccinated, even those that are confirmed to not be related to COVID, must by law be reported to VARES.
Exactly how any respiratory issue that comes into a hospital is being called COVID. Like I said, I see parity in statistical dishonesty on both sides of that issue. The ones who wanted COVID to be scary set up thge rules, the ones who want the vaccines to be scary are merely playing by the rules their enemies set up. They are playing fair.
We have different types of data for different purposes. Yes there are some lists which only "reasonably confirm" COVID. Generally we wouldnt use that for statistical analysis. Then you have other studies and list that explicitly randomly sample and test for the presence of the genome. These are the data sets we tend to use to draw mot conclusions off of.
The man in this video mentions that when they rolled the amplification back to the recommended levels, they had almost no new cases. Thank you friend
I just don't understand your motivation, dude.
https://www.medscape.com/sites/public/covid-19/vaccine-insights/how-concerned-are-you-about-vaccine-related-adverse-events
@Eris @Oblivia
Informed conscent doesnt mean you know enough to be an oracle. It means you know the risks we do know, and the risks of the unknown. Knowing its a new drug and that that infers certain risks of the unknown is part of informed conscent, and a perfectly reasonable rason to be hesitant.
I'm not vaccinated, I have no intention of vaccinating until we have better data and the vaccines are out longer. I am not against anyone who is vaccine hesitant or doesnt want tog et vaccines. I am against the idiots spewing misinformation as a means to justify the that decision however.
If/when someone were to lie in that way, yes.
Thankfully the risks we do know (such as 40 per million mycarditis, or the 2 cases of blood clots) are on the sheets of side effects. Despite being quite rare they dont really hide it most of the time. If someone does hide it then yes, that is wrong of them.
