The vaccine is rolling out

[Deleted member 1333509]

For example "442.5 deaths per 100,000 within 60 days" -> this is total deaths per 100 000 people and is NOT death related to vaccination AT all - deaths that would occur naturally, regardless of vaccine or not.

I said: "442.5 deaths per 100,000 within 60 days of taking a vaccine"
Annnnnnddd the paper says:



So there's one of your point negated considering I said exactly what the paper said, nothing to do with whether deaths were related to vaccination or not, just that the morality rate within 60 days of taking a vaccine was 442.5 per 100,000 cases.

Next:
53 deaths out of 45 million vaccinated gave what number exactly?
one Guillain-Barré syndrome case per 100,000 persons -> again what number you get?

I said: "53 deaths from Guillain-Barré syndrome caused by the vaccine"
Annnnddd the paper says:



I said it resulted in 53 deaths, so did the paper. What's your problem?

This is why anti-vaxxer are regarded as retarded idiots - because they refuse to read beyond anything that support their claims. Its called confirmation bias, and yeah, its idiocy.

Says the guy making a mockery of the English language by not being able to read it. Generally if you're going to call someone "retarded" you should make sure you're smarter than them first. Most anti-vaxxers would wipe the flaw with you bro, even the ones that think there's nanotechnology in everything would probably starch you.

Btw I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I just keep an open mind about what I do and don't know is objective reality. Give it a whirl some time.

And if you think that 0.1% chance to die is good for young healthy man - you are out of your mind, not to mention that your math is way off if you cannot see the difference between 0.1 and 0.00001.

I'm not going to argue whether having a 999/1000 chance of survival is good odds. If you think it's not good odds, it's your subjective choice. It doesn't make that ridiculous fucking statement objectively true.

And I said that even though you're quoting a 99.9% survival rate, it's not going to be precisely 99.9, but more than likely something like 99.995%. If you can find a stat showing it's exactly 99.900000% then go ahead, but my point is that once you extrapolate to larger groups of subjects than 1000 people, the occurrence will not remain as 999/1000 => 9990/10000 but will change.

You didn't know the difference between a 0.1% chance of survival and a 99.% chance of survival so why do you punch your faux-intellect up your ass buddy

Once again, a complete waste of time having anything to do with interacting with you Angel. Keep up your high standard of consistently being the least beneficial person on BHW to try to have a conversation with.

 

[AngelSeo]

I said: "442.5 deaths per 100,000 within 60 days of taking a vaccine"
Annnnnnddd the paper says:



So there's one of your point negated considering I said exactly what the paper said, nothing to do with whether deaths were related to vaccination or not, just that the morality rate within 60 days of taking a vaccine was 442.5 per 100,000 cases.




I said: "53 deaths from Guillain-Barré syndrome caused by the vaccine"
Annnnddd the paper says:



I said it resulted in 53 deaths, so did the paper. What's your problem?



Says the guy making a mockery of the English language by not being able to read it. Btw I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I just don't have a mind welded shut tighter than a Chinese coronavirus hospital door.


I'm not going to argue whether having a 999/1000 chance of survival is good odds. If you think it's not good odds, it's your subjective choice. It doesn't make that ridiculous fucking statement objectively true.

And I said that even though you're quoting 99.9%, it's not going to be precisely 99.9, but more than likely something like 99.995%. If you can find a stat showing it's exactly 99.900000% then go ahead, but my point is that once you extrapolate to larger groups of subjects than 1000 people, the occurence will not remain as 999/1000 => 9990/10000 but will change.

You didn't know the difference between a 0.1% chance of survival and a 99.% chance of survival so why do you punch your faux-intellect up your ass buddy.

Oh common do not play stupid. In your post you IMPLIED that vaccines caused the 445 deaths:


Which is obviously a bullshit.

Then:



Its not "subjective". If it was, the world wont be in a lock down for a year. So obviously this is the opinion shared by both the vast majority of the scientific community and the governments around the world. This is as objective as possible. About the 99.9 vs 99.995% -> this is not the number I came with, but the guy I replied to - he claimed that 0.1% is good odd to take which I call as bullshit, supported by the numbers and then you stepped in the conversation.

 

[Scorpion Ghost]

I say let the willing take it, and wait a few months. If they don't start dying en mass or developing horrible side effects, then maybe you take it too.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Which is obviously a bullshit.

Which is obviously a bullshit. I'm beginning to understand why you couldn't understand the stats I posted.

Its not "subjective". If it was, the world wont be in a lock down for a year. So obviously this is the opinion shared by both the vast majority of the scientific community and the governments around the world. This is as objective as possible.

A statistic is objective. The conclusion derived from a statistic is always subjective, unless the conclusion is also an objective truth. Even the opinion that governments might have that a lockdown is the best form action is still subjective. Just because an authority figure has an opinion, it doesn't become any less subjective.

It's not "as objective as possible", and you said that because you have no idea what subjectivity and objectivity actually mean. No problem, next time just do a quick google search before you try to lecturing me on their meaning.

About the 99.9 vs 99.995% -> this is not the number I came with, but the guy I replied to - he claimed that 0.1% is good odd to take which I call as bullshit, supported by the numbers and then you stepped in the conversation.

You don't get to "come up with a number". It's not precisely 99.9% and that was my only point. You mistook what I meant re: mentioning 0.99995% completely. It was an example.

 

[nakamura]

Sorry mate, but 0.1% are AWFUL chances of survival for young and healthy human. Vaccines usually cause death at rates of about 1-3 to 100 000 (0.00001) which is whole lot better than 1 to 1000 (0.1). Also implying that Germany is locking down to increase the acceptance of the vaccine is bullshit. They had even worse lockdown without vaccine being over the horizon. This is pure thinfoil hat thinking.

Oh boy, here we go again. I wrote less than 0,1%. Actually, it is far far less than 0,1%. Check the statistics and do yourself a favor. The average death of age is 83 years.

I am not implying they are doing the lockdown to increase acceptance. They are actually doing it. Unlike you, I am watching the press conferences and listen to what the politicians are saying, so you better don't talk about "thinfoil". And nope, there was NO "worse" lockdown. No idea why you would write this. Guess why? Because there was no Christmas (Germany is a Christian country, so it's pretty fucking meaningful) and New Year. Now only supermarkets are opening.

It is has been absolutely clear there will be MORE cases of the virus during wintertime. Same like there is a huge increase of the flu during wintertime. It's inevitable. The same old story every year.

Then here we are: Another guy who got no arguments but calling others "thinfoil hat". Mate, you are exposing yourself

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

I wrote less than 0,1%. Actually, it is far far less than 0,1%

@AngelSeo

This means a greater than 99.9% survival rate btw in case you are completely drawing a blank as to its relevancy.

 

[nakamura]

@AngelSeo

This means greater than 99.9% survival rate btw in case you are completely drawing a blank as to its relevancy.

Hey no mate!!!! Survival rate of 99,9% is actually REALLY low!!!!!!!!111

ffs

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Hey no mate!!!! Survival rate of 99,9% is actually REALLY low!!!!!!!!111

ffs

Yeah right, how much fucking better could you ask for? it's probably 99.99% at a minimum.

Side note, pretty bizarre that the CDC uses multiples instead of percentages to describe death rates.. not a very scientific way to present data because there's no context for the exact figures, but only in relation to each other. These could be on a scale of hundreds or millions and we have no way of knowing, and almost no other important scientific data would be displayed like this.



Pretty solid way to manipulate the data to obfuscate just how miniscule the prevalence of death is.

 

[AngelSeo]

Oh boy, here we go again. I wrote less than 0,1%. Actually, it is far far less than 0,1%. Check the statistics and do yourself a favor. The average death of age is 83 years.

I am not implying they are doing the lockdown to increase acceptance. They are actually doing it. Unlike you, I am watching the press conferences and listen to what the politicians are saying, so you better don't talk about "thinfoil". And nope, there was NO "worse" lockdown. No idea why you would write this. Guess why? Because there was no Christmas (Germany is a Christian country, so it's pretty fucking meaningful) and New Year. Now only supermarkets are opening.

It is has been absolutely clear there will be MORE cases of the virus during wintertime. Same like there is a huge increase of the flu during wintertime. It's inevitable. The same old story every year.

Then here we are: Another guy who got no arguments but calling others "thinfoil hat". Mate, you are exposing yourself

Oh lol. So can you show me where the politician, ANY politician is saying "we are locking people up, to increase acceptance". Lets see?

 

[AngelSeo]

Yeah right, how much fucking better could you ask for? it's probably 99.99% at a minimum.

Side note, pretty bizarre that the CDC uses multiples instead of percentages to describe death rates.. not a very scientific way to present data because there's no context for the exact figures, but only in relation to each other. These could be on a scale of hundreds or millions and we have no way of knowing, and almost no other important scientific data would be displayed like this.



Pretty solid way to manipulate the data to obfuscate just how miniscule the prevalence of death is.

Because average person is stupid. And is still smarter than half of the people. Abstract numbers and long term thinking are beyond the scope of the 90% of the people.

 

[AngelSeo]

Oh and one final note. If you start doing SEO for a doctor and HE start telling you how you should be doing YOUR job because he watched an video on youtube, you will laugh at him.

Yet you think that your lame opinion weight the same as the opinion of real scientists and doctors for things you have no fucking clue about. Shame on you. Shame on every fucking anti-intellectual. People like this are bringing another dark ages over humanity. Shame on you. I am out.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Oh and one final note. If you start doing SEO for a doctor and HE start telling you how you should be doing YOUR job because he watched an video on youtube, you will laugh at him.

Yet you think that your lame opinion weight the same as the opinion of real scientists and doctors for things you have no fucking clue about. Shame on you. Shame on every fucking anti-intellectual. People like this are bringing another dark ages over humanity. Shame on you. I am out.

No one gives a shit about your guilt trip/shame mate. Learn the basics of what objectivity and subjectivity are before you try to pass judgement on what people do and don't know relating to science.

Hey on the upside.. at least if we go back to the dark ages you won't have to travel far.

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Because average person is stupid. And is still smarter than half of the people. Abstract numbers and long term thinking are beyond the scope of the 90% of the people.

People can read percentages just fine. That's not the reason at all.

 

[Deleted member 1095690]

Yeah right, how much fucking better could you ask for? it's probably 99.99% at a minimum.

Side note, pretty bizarre that the CDC uses multiples instead of percentages to describe death rates.. not a very scientific way to present data because there's no context for the exact figures, but only in relation to each other. These could be on a scale of hundreds or millions and we have no way of knowing, and almost no other important scientific data would be displayed like this.



Pretty solid way to manipulate the data to obfuscate just how miniscule the prevalence of death is.

Not trying to fact check you. Or argue wherever or not the numbers are correct(although I would trust cdc numbers personally)

But if you want the percentages. 10x = 1000% not that hard to figure out

Also...Not sure why didn't use the percentages. Seems more impactful than using 10x.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

How many shots u guys taking today?

I'm in line for 3rd shot since Sunday

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Not trying to fact check you. Or argue wherever or not the numbers are correct(although I would trust cdc numbers personally)

But if you want the percentages. 10x = 1000% not that hard to figure out

Also...Not sure why didn't use the percentages. Seems more impactful than using 10x.

percentages as in..

The mortality rate for people 0 - 4 years: 0.001% of cases lead to death

ie. the absolute death rate instead of relative representations. (ie. the only way you can measure the stats they've given is in comparison between the groups).

What use is saying "people who are 65+ have 600x more chance of dying from covid compared to the control age group if you don't know what the control age group's rate of mortality is?

Does "600x" mean 0.000000001 * 600? Does it mean 0.0001 * 600? Who knows.

It's a pretty useless stat to give if you want to understand the absolute mortality of covid.. in fact it's not pretty useless, it's useless.

And yeah, agree with you that multiples are a fucking bizarre way for the leading scientific body in the US relating to diseases to do science. An undergrad would pick this up immediately.

 

[AngelSeo]

People can read percentages just fine. That's not the reason at all.

Also I wouldn't be bringing up average people being dumb and people that are below that mark if I were you.. might be a bit close to the bone for comfort.

Not really. Because I am maybe not the brightest bulb, but I do realize my limitations. Thats why I trust the opinion of smarter, better educated and experienced people in the fields I have no clue about. Can you say the same?

About how average people are not dumb, as ma marketeer you should read the story of how quarter pounder won vs third pounder, because the business overestimated the intelligence of the general consumer. Its very educational:

 

[Deleted member 1333509]

Not really. Because I am maybe not the brightest bulb, but I do realize my limitations. Thats why I trust the opinion of smarter, better educated and experienced people in the fields I have no clue about. Can you say the same?

About how average people are not dumb, as ma marketeer you should read the story of how quarter pounder won vs third pounder, because the business overestimated the intelligence of the general consumer. Its very educational:
View attachment 155333

In this thread and 2 others I've quoted scientists about a dozen times so far. You seem to have the perspective that people that disagree with you could only do so because their opinions aren't backed by science. Do you really know your limitations?

"Dumb" is a relevant term. You can't be absolutely dumb, because it's always compared to other people. That's why the IQ scale is set with 100 being the average intelligence.

Therefore "average" people can't be dumb, because they are equally as more intelligent in comparison to the lower half of the population as they are less intelligent than the upper half. They're neither "dumb" nor highly intelligent.

Not sure why the intelligence of people really matters when talking about covid vaccines though. Probably because you've seen enough highly-biased mainstream news that has subconsciously created a link between "people that don't want the vaccine" and "dumb people" in your head. It's a sad place to be and you should try as hard as you possibly can not to brand the people you disagree with as stupid by default - it's more a reflection of your intelligence than theirs (or maybe not your intelligence, but certainly your susceptibility to manipulation without realising it).

When it comes to this topic I don't really judge peoples' intelligence in relation to their decision, because I care more about the arguments themselves. Weird idea, I know.

 

[AngelSeo]

In this thread and 2 others I've quoted scientists about a dozen times so far. You seem to have the perspective that people that disagree with you could only do so because their opinions aren't backed by science. Do you really know your limitations?

"Dumb" is a relevant term. You can't be absolutely dumb, because it's always compared to other people. That's why the IQ scale is set with 100 being the average intelligence.

Therefore "average" people can't be dumb, because they are equally as more intelligent in comparison to the lower half of the population as they are less intelligent than the upper half. They're neither "dumb" nor highly intelligent.

Not sure why the intelligence of people really matters when talking about covid vaccines though. Probably because you've seen enough highly-biased mainstream news that has subconsciously created a link between "people that don't want the vaccine" and "dumb people" in your head. It's a sad place to be and you should try as hard as you possibly can not to brand the people you disagree with as stupid by default - it's more a reflection of your intelligence than theirs (or maybe not your intelligence, but certainly your susceptibility to manipulation without realising it).

When it comes to this topic I don't really judge peoples' intelligence in relation to their decision, because I care more about the arguments themselves. Weird idea, I know.

Bla bla bla. You quoted PARTIALLY, ignoring the general consensus, accepting the facts that suits you and ignore those that did not. Because if you indeed read the articles YOU send me fully, this argument wont be happening, because the conclusion of all of them is "get the fucking shot and stop being an idiot".

Also facts have some interesting qualities, like they did not care about yours or anyone opinions, because they are, well, facts. I do not fear to call people what they are, including and not limited to, dumb. And yes, if you ignore the advice of a specialists in a field, the empirical evidence that is before your eyes, and trust an anonymous youtube video, you are dumb af.

 

[statsers]