Your dumbass hasn't named one scientist or doctor. FOH.
"If you trust me, you’ll get the vaccine," Morgan Freeman
- Thread starter Doobie Doo
- Start date
Your dumbass hasn't named one scientist or doctor. FOH.
No it proves the study was designed to mislead people into thinking there is a comparison of non vs vaccinated people.
Fam, it's like these cats purposely being obtuse with the information out here.
They said 500k died from it and link CDC which at the bottom asterisk their totals as
Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1.
The guidelines urge using information from COVID-19 testing, where possible, but also allow for deaths to be listed as “presumed” or “probable” COVID-19 based on symptoms and the best clinical judgment of the person filling out the death certificate. A medical examiner trying to determine a cause of death in the absence of testing would comb medical records and query family and loved ones about the person’s symptoms before they died, Aiken said. Postmortem COVID-19 tests may be possible, depending on the jurisdiction.
PCR tests for the RNA that is inside of that virus. You can ONLY show positive for that RNA if you had the virus in your system. But you've been told this many times and keep pushing misinformation anyway.
Now, explain why you just demanded that the PCR test be required to prove it was Covid if you're simultaneously claiming that PCR doesn't test for the virus?
That is a lie. Post your source that most died by "guessing".
We've already been around this numerous times - it's actually over 600,000 excess people that have died (in December you were claiming ZERO excess deaths) and virtually all of those have been from Covid.
You are lying, again. I have never once claimed to be an epidemiologist.
It's actually up to nearly 3 million deaths now.
Coronavirus Update (Live): 133,002,022 Cases and 2,885,153 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer
Once again your dumb ass has no reading comprehension. They're saying that in Israel they're not systematically testing all the asymptomatic people regularly - of course not, they don't have the resources to test every single person in the country every two weeks. However, anyone with the slightest awareness knows that hundreds of thousands of asymptomatic people are still getting tested on a regular basis (for their jobs, for travel, because someone close to them got it, etc.) and the study shows that among the vaccinated group infections are over 90% lower than in the non-vaccinated group.
Now, explain what you would even consider a "good" study, since you don't even believe in viruses or dinosaurs and constantly claim that the vast majority of credential scientists are liars. What are your rules for something being a "good" study that you would believe?[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
Compared to over 400,000 65+ year olds that have died. Keep proving my point and showing that you know nothing about statistics and how things work.
As i said it was a slow year when you got 'the poster of the year' award.
He has said repeatedly that he doesn't believe in viruses, that Covid-19 has never been isolated (even though they isolated it within days of the first news about the outbreak), and that tests for the virus are invalid.
He also claims that some people among us are invisible reptilian entities, but he doesn't believe in dinosaurs and claims they never existed.
Yet he wants to lecture people about what does and doesn't constitute a solid scientific study.
So because a fewer amount of people under 60 died, that means they shouldn’t be concerned about it?
Wait, 100,000 deaths among younger people is irrelevant now just because 400,000+ older people have died too?
For the 35-65 age group the death rate increased by about 10%. That's the biggest one-year jump on record since WW1 and the 1918-19 flu pandemic. But no big deal, right?
What if I told you that 80% of cancer deaths were for 65+, would that convince you that cancer ain't no big deal for those under 65?
You really thought that was a smart thing to say before you typed it?
GoAggieGo.
getting blitzed.
Yea, this is where I’m at and what both me and my boss was saying earlier today. Once some years have passed, and everything appears safe, then I’ll consider the shot.
That “anti-vaxxer” label is funny, considering most of those who aren’t for this particular vaccine, have and will take other vaccines. Just another shaming tactic.
The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
Depends on what you mean by concerned.So because a fewer amount of people under 60 died, that means they shouldn’t be concerned about it?
If you have co-morbidities, perhaps.
If not, then no.
These people are idiots I swear.Wait, 100,000 deaths among younger people is irrelevant now just because 400,000+ older people have died too?
For the 35-65 age group the death rate increased by about 10%. That's the biggest one-year jump on record since WW1 and the 1918-19 flu pandemic. But no big deal, right?
What if I told you that 80% of cancer deaths were for 65+, would that convince you that cancer ain't no big deal for those under 65?
You really thought that was a smart thing to say before you typed it?
Do you believe that a significant # of people under 65 with no co-morbidities have still faced major side-effects that lasted for months after infection?
I'm not even talking about the 100,000 deaths for those under 65 now, I'm talking about the effects on the survivors.
The Wall Is Undefeated!
Superstar
Putting words into my mouth is not a good argument.Wait, 100,000 deaths among younger people is irrelevant now just because 400,000+ older people have died too?
Do you have a point? As per usual you are making bad arguments trying to pass it off as concern. I know about that statistic. Yet why don't we hear the furore about it. Instead during lockdown many Cancer patients had their treatment and visitations delayed. So spare me your concern trolling.
Projection.You really thought that was a smart thing to say before you typed it?
