Vaxxed MORE likely to end up in hospital (Page 1/2)
MidEngineManiac AUG 12, 07:47 AM
So much for THAT idea !

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data

(Yup, officeeeeAAAALLLLLL goobernment website. Their own numbers)

If you take a look at the current data posted today it shows the following:

Cases in ICU:

Vaxxed: 7
Unvaxxed: 9


Confirmed cases:

Vaxxed: 132
Unvaxxed: 267
Which means of the vaxxed populace 132 confirmed cases, 7 ended up in ICU. Which means an ICU admittance rate of 5.3% for vaxxed.

But of the unvaxxed populace 267 confirmed cases, 9 ended up in ICU. Which means an ICU admittance rate of 3.37% for the unvaxxed.
And that shows that getting vaccinated (either 1 dose or fully vaxxed) means you are almost nearly double the risk of ending up in the ICU.


Uh oh.

Their vaccine is good narrative just **** the bed.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-12-2021).]

Australian AUG 12, 08:12 AM
Doesn't follow the narrative the sky is falling we thank the tripods.
rinselberg AUG 12, 08:17 AM
I'm just about dead certain that MEM's statistical analysis is seriously flawed.

I really can't let myself put in the time here to critique it.
rinselberg AUG 12, 08:46 AM
A new "read" from The Atlantic's Ed Yong on where things are likely to go from here, in terms of Covid. He considers what's likely in the coming months and years.

The article is freely accessible to all. Subscribers and non-subscribers, alike.

Ed Yong has written extensively about Covid for The Atlantic since the pandemic was first declared.

"Delta has changed the pandemic endgame. Now what?"

quote
Cases of COVID-19 are rising fast. Vaccine uptake has plateaued. The pandemic will end—but the way there is different now.


Ed Yong for The Atlantic; August 12, 2021.
https://www.theatlantic.com...emic-endgame/619726/


SPOILER ALERT

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-12-2021).]

Australian AUG 12, 09:40 AM
45 million + 35 million = 80,000,000 cases of flu 5,000,000 cases of covid (20 to one chance of getting covid over the flu) 61,000 34,157 deaths = 95,157 flu deaths vs covid 180,000 deaths. (and 2 x as likely to die) Kind of takes away scare factor but we all know that 20 x rate of the flu spread is insane meaning fast. The stats rely on people avoiding it at all costs.

20 x likely to get covid over flu.
2 x likely to die based on the information on site provided.

[This message has been edited by Australian (edited 08-12-2021).]

randye AUG 12, 08:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Ed Yong




WHY are you hooting about "Eddie The Wonder Yong"?

WHERE has "Eddie The Wonder Yong" practiced medicine?

Does "Eddie The Wonder Yong" even HAVE a medical degree or a license to practice medicine?

WHERE has "Eddie The Wonder Yong" been employed as a virologist?

Does "Eddie The Wonder Yong" even HAVE a degree in virology?

"Eddie The Wonder Yong" claims to have a degree in biochemistry so WHERE has "Eddie the Wonder Yong ever been employed as a biochemist?

I know the answer to the rhetorical questions above.

YOU DON'T and that is why you believe that "Eddie The Wonder Yong" is some sort of "medical expert" on SARSCOV19

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-12-2021).]

rinselberg AUG 12, 11:28 PM
This, Mr "E", is obviously an exception or "carve-out" from my "I do not see randye forum messages" praxis, but since you seem to have more than just a passing interest in this topic, why not look at the article yourself? Scroll through it. See if anything "catches your eye." How does it strike you, in terms of credibility?

It doesn't look like something that this Ed Yong "cooked up" in a mere hour or two of "creative writing", just for him to have something that he could push out to The Atlantic.

Where do you think he went wrong with this article?

Do you think my very brief distillation of his analysis, where I put my SPOILER ALERT, lines up with what he wrote?

Do you see a political leaning or "spin" in this article? Does anything in the article itself trigger the (bizarre) "Leftist, Liberal, Leftist Media, Marxist, bla bla bla" reaction that undeniably characterizes your voice here?

Is there some particular concern that you have about this article, or about my using this forum to express my interest in this article and put it on display for anyone else who maybe would be curious about it?

What if Ed Yong's purportedly informed speculation about the virus turns out to be not so well informed? When will we know? And what harm would have been done, with my posting of it on this forum?

Are you here to engage in TOPICAL discussions--or just to "rag" on me, as you did some time ago, when maryjane said something about the Covid virus, and you reacted as if it were something that rinselberg had said. Remember?



You didn't have any problem with what maryjane said about the virus.

You just saw yet another of countless 1000s of pretexts for you to "rag" on me, because, in your haste, you mistook maryjane's words about the virus for something that I had said.

Maybe you didn't even care which forum member's remark you were ranting about . . . a context-free rant.

?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-12-2021).]

TheDigitalAlchemist AUG 13, 12:42 AM
The very simple fact that we aren't able to easily dismiss this sort of thing just shows how poorly the world's governments are handling this entire situation.

There is no consistent transfer of valid information. its ridiculous and pathetic and shameful.


And those who spend countless hours bickering political stuff on here aren't really doing anything to help the situation. Not a single soul is swayed by your so-called "wisdom". Might as well have your hands down below "servicing your leaky pipes". To think you are doing anything more than that is just foolin' yerself.

Its downright tiresome. lately, when I gather the energy to click open a thread, I'm never surprised to see the same half dozen guys with the same old tired "back and forth". And so, it continues... ad nauseum.
randye AUG 13, 12:57 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

What if Ed Yong's ........ speculation





When it isn't feelings and hyperbole, then it's hypotheticals and speculation with you Leftists.

YOU are the one mewling about the SPECULATIONS of a blogger who ISN'T A SCIENTIST

We can just add "Eddie The Wonder Yong" to your already prolific list of chuckle-monkey, opinion slingers who lack the foundation to be credible.

As with all of your "experts" from Frum and Applebaum to Kilgore and Phony Tony Fauci and now "Eddie The Wonder Yong" and a dozen others, it doesn't take more than 2 minutes of casual investigation to reveal that they are bullsh*t artists that spout and write crap for gullible chumps like you who have no critical thinking skills to swallow and regurgitate back as if it's gospel. That is what they get paid to do.


.........................................

By the way, your continued reposting of something from OVER A YEAR AGO just continues to validate my observation about you in that post and stands as proof positive that absolutely nothing about you has improved since then.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-13-2021).]

MidEngineManiac AUG 13, 12:58 AM
The REAL "chincer" on how poorly this B-S has been handled are the court cases (over 40 now last time I read). EVERY single time a government in the west is challenged in court to produce the isolated virus....they cant do it. Or wont do it under any circumstances. Ya would THINK chief medical officers of provinces/states/countries would have access to that stuff when subpoenaed.

That alone tells me it is one of 2 things. #1 is a false narrative and hysteria over something that doesn't exist for "whatever" purpose to get that clot-shot into the population for "whatever" purpose on a global scale. (Tin-foil hat time and a commie/virus under every rock). OR, #2 they DO have it but wont release because it would prove beyond a doubt to be a bioweapon with the wests involvement in genocide if properly and openly analyzed.

Or both. A bioweapon where the clot-shot is the goal of the tactic.