https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/statu...974540800?s=20
:lol2
Printable View
The graph shows the number of COVID-19 Deaths by Age and Vaccination Status - the red bar shows COVID Deaths of boosted patients.
But since 72% of the population is boosted, the other side will argue that the majority are boosted, which is why the number of deaths is higher (i.e. base rate fallacy). Also note that I simply took a screenshot from the official government site.
If we look at the All-Cause Mortality data per 100K of each vaccination status, we can see that the blue bar (boosted) started outpacing from March 2022 onwards. Within the last six months of 2022, boosted patients died almost four times compared to the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated.
:lol2:lol2:lol2
https://twitter.com/amrita418/status...532164608?s=20
Eh, what would she know.
My position on the clot shots:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
1) the excess death numbers are a bunch of BS. It is just a group of losers trying to get Twitter famous that are pushing that agenda
2) the clot shots are not killing people. They did injure a bunch of folks and did kill some people but not a lot of deaths
3) the clot shots provided little to no protection. I believe the scientists will admit this in a year or two. Just like they recently admitted the truth about masks and natural immunity.
4) Bart Hanson will continue to take the clot shots
#4 is as certain as taxes and death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Small_BananaMy position on the clot shots:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
1) the excess death numbers are a bunch of BS. It is just a group of losers trying to get Twitter famous that are pushing that agenda
2) the clot shots are not killing people. They did injure a bunch of folks and did kill some people but not a lot of deaths
3) the clot shots provided little to no protection. I believe the scientists will admit this in a year or two. Just like they recently admitted the truth about masks and natural immunity.
4) Bart Hanson will continue to take the clot shots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jDS4vayXK0Quote:
Originally Posted by Small_BananaMy position on the clot shots:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
1) the excess death numbers are a bunch of BS. It is just a group of losers trying to get Twitter famous that are pushing that agenda To summarize the dissenters or questioners wholly as a group of losers is profoundly ignorant
2) the clot shots are not killing people. They did injure a bunch of folks and did kill some people but not a lot of deaths so they are killing people? make up your mind. not a lot, lol. Great analysis.
3) the clot shots provided little to no protection. I believe the scientists will admit this in a year or two. Just like they recently admitted the truth about masks and natural immunity. How good of them! Confidence inspiring!
4) Bart Hanson will continue to take the clot shots
32 times less likely to not end up in hospital for her age group? LMAO. Thanks HONORABLE Katy Gallagher. I'm going with Based Babet on this one.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
she looks like a walking corpseQuote:
Originally Posted by OK2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jDS4vayXK0Quote:
Originally Posted by Small_Banana
32 times less likely to not end up in hospital for her age group? LMAO. Thanks HONORABLE Katy Gallagher. I'm going with Based Babet on this one.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
Gold Coast Hospital employee wakes up ‘paralysed’ after Pfizer vaccine
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work...079ddf607c2dd2
John Thomlinson, 62, says despite knowing he was left “paralysed” by the vaccine, Queensland Health has been “bullying and coercing” him for the past 16 months to take it again “even though they know I am at a high risk of dying”.
The finance worker, who does not interact with patients, says Gold Coast Hospital has refused to accept two valid vaccine exemptions from medical experts, after he developed a serious spinal impairment that left him unable to walk to a period of time.
The UK native, who has worked in the Queensland public service for 11 years, still has difficulty walking 16 months later, can’t go up and down stairs unaided, and experiences constant pain in his ankles, legs and arms.
To date he has spent $11,000 on physiotherapy and medical bills.
An infectious disease expert concluded that Mr Thomlinson had experienced an inflammatory reaction to the vaccine, and strongly advised against taking another dose — writing him a 24-month exemption, consistent with ATAGI guidelines.
“But then he also quantified that really I shouldn’t take a vaccine until I’m 100 per cent recovered,” Mr Thomlinson said.
What were you saying again Small_Banana?
:scalir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqhCQZaH4VsQuote:
Originally Posted by dwai
Could bird flu cause a Covid-like pandemic? Everything you need to know about H5N1 - the strain with a 50% kill rate that may be spreading among people for first time in decades
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...know-H5N1.html
At least we have something to look forward to.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/02...7262205643.jpg
Chinada covid meme I constructed
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/o...ates-work.html
The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous.
“There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”
But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?
“Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson.
What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?
“They were convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies.”
What about the utility of masks in conjunction with other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene, physical distancing or air filtration?
“There’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference.”
These observations don’t come from just anywhere. Jefferson and 11 colleagues conducted the study for Cochrane, a British nonprofit that is widely considered the gold standard for its reviews of health care data. The conclusions were based on 78 randomized controlled trials, six of them during the Covid pandemic, with a total of 610,872 participants in multiple countries. And they track what has been widely observed in the United States: States with mask mandates fared no better against Covid than those without.
No study — or study of studies — is ever perfect. Science is never absolutely settled. What’s more, the analysis does not prove that proper masks, properly worn, had no benefit at an individual level. People may have good personal reasons to wear masks, and they may have the discipline to wear them consistently. Their choices are their own.
.But when it comes to the population-level benefits of masking, the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust. Those skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks and occasionally censored as “misinformers” for opposing mandates were right. The mainstream experts and pundits who supported mandates were wrong. In a better world, it would behoove the latter group to acknowledge their error, along with its considerable physical, psychological, pedagogical and political costs.
Don’t count on it. In congressional testimony this month, Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called into question the Cochrane analysis’s reliance on a small number of Covid-specific randomized controlled trials and insisted that her agency’s guidance on masking in schools wouldn’t change. If she ever wonders why respect for the C.D.C. keeps falling, she could look to herself, and resign, and leave it to someone else to reorganize her agency.
That, too, probably won’t happen: We no longer live in a culture in which resignation is seen as the honorable course for public officials who fail in their jobs.
But the costs go deeper. When people say they “trust the science,” what they presumably mean is that science is rational, empirical, rigorous, receptive to new information, sensitive to competing concerns and risks. Also: humble, transparent, open to criticism, honest about what it doesn’t know, willing to admit error.
The C.D.C.’s increasingly mindless adherence to its masking guidance is none of those things. It isn’t merely undermining the trust it requires to operate as an effective public institution. It is turning itself into an unwitting accomplice to the genuine enemies of reason and science — conspiracy theorists and quack-cure peddlers — by so badly representing the values and practices that science is supposed to exemplify.
It also betrays the technocratic mind-set that has the unpleasant habit of assuming that nothing is ever wrong with the bureaucracy’s well-laid plans — provided nobody gets in its way, nobody has a dissenting point of view, everyone does exactly what it asks, and for as long as officialdom demands. This is the mentality that once believed that China provided a highly successful model for pandemic response.
Yet there was never a chance that mask mandates in the United States would get anywhere close to 100 percent compliance or that people would or could wear masks in a way that would meaningfully reduce transmission. Part of the reason is specific to American habits and culture, part of it to constitutional limits on government power, part of it to human nature, part of it to competing social and economic necessities, part of it to the evolution of the virus itself.
But whatever the reason, mask mandates were a fool’s errand from the start. They may have created a false sense of safety — and thus permission to resume semi-normal life. They did almost nothing to advance safety itself. The Cochrane report ought to be the final nail in this particular coffin.
There’s a final lesson. The last justification for masks is that, even if they proved to be ineffective, they seemed like a relatively low-cost, intuitively effective way of doing something against the virus in the early days of the pandemic. But “do something” is not science, and it shouldn’t have been public policy. And the people who had the courage to say as much deserved to be listened to, not treated with contempt. They may not ever get the apology they deserve, but vindication ought to be enough.
:lol2
https://twitter.com/Jason/status/162...291778048?s=20
Hate to tacitly endorse SNL
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-o...-leak-807b7b0a
Here's a similar article not behind a paywall: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...5.cms?from=mdrQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Congrats on calling it from day 1.
Now that the lab leak origin is considered "likely", how do you feel about your lefty friends censoring this discussion on Twitter in 2020? Is that sort of action good for America?