Canada Vac is working

[akvanden]

1 hour ago, irv said:

Read it again, slowly this time. 

Again, you go to the hospital, clinic, wherever and you ask for the case numbers for today. They tell you 614 in the not fully vaccinated, 1037 in the fully vaccinated and 3,175 in the fully vaccinated with booster but when you ask what the numbers are in the fully UNvaccinated, they tell you they no longer provide that number????

Then you ask how many are in the hospital vaxxed vs unvaxxed then in the ICU, and despite all that info available, you decide to get vaxxed or vaxxed with a booster anyways? Hence my ignorant and stupid comment. 

 

 

I read it super slowly, and then I realized I've told you this multiple times before, but durhamradio just copies their data from https://covid-19.ontario.ca/  I'd recommend you just go directly to the source from now on. Here's the definition of "not fully vaccincated" in the screenshot (spoiler, it includes the non vaccinated). 

 

So then I DO ask you about the unvaccinated in the hospital, ICU, and low and behold, it's the same metric! NOT vaxxed vs vaxxed with a booster as you think.

So, may I ask my same question again, verbatim? 

What exactly does 10% of the population (90% are fully vaccinated) driving 30% (36 / total in ICU from your link) mean to you? If it was 1:1 you'd have 10% driving 10%. Serious question because every time I post that (which are completely based of your numbers) you never address it. 

 

[irv]

9 hours ago, akvanden said:

I read it super slowly, and then I realized I've told you this multiple times before, but durhamradio just copies their data from https://covid-19.ontario.ca/  I'd recommend you just go directly to the source from now on. Here's the definition of "not fully vaccincated" in the screenshot (spoiler, it includes the non vaccinated). 

 

So then I DO ask you about the unvaccinated in the hospital, ICU, and low and behold, it's the same metric! NOT vaxxed vs vaxxed with a booster as you think.

So, may I ask my same question again, verbatim? 

What exactly does 10% of the population (90% are fully vaccinated) driving 30% (36 / total in ICU from your link) mean to you? If it was 1:1 you'd have 10% driving 10%. Serious question because every time I post that (which are completely based of your numbers) you never address it. 

 

Why do you suppose they decided to combine all the numbers now? Again, what do you suppose they are afraid of by just showing the numbers in the UNVACCINATED?

They have moved the goalpost how many times now? Flip flopped, lied, back peddled, pointed fingers, censored. The list goes on and on but yet here you are still defending the vaccines like they are now an essential part of our lives and everyone should still get them even though they clearly show they are unlike any vaccine we have had prior. Even the CDC changed the definition of vaccine from provide immunity to offer "some protection" 

[akvanden]

3 minutes ago, irv said:

Why do you suppose they decided to combine all the numbers now? Again, what do you suppose they are afraid of by just showing the numbers in the UNVACCINATED?

Simplicity. People want to know their odds once fully vaccinated vs nothing or something in the middle. Can you imagine the confusion if there were 4 or 5 different categories of odds? We can’t even figure out what odds are in this thread with just two categories.

 

9 minutes ago, irv said:

The list goes on and on but yet here you are still defending the vaccines like they are now an essential part of our lives and everyone should still get them even though they clearly show they are unlike any vaccine we have had prior.

I could give two shits whether or not you want to get vaccinated or anyone else for that matter. I’ve never told a single person to get vaccinated. What you’re confusing is what you’re calling “defense of the vaccine” vs plain old defense of common sense. When you post stats that show 10% of the population is driving 30% ( which you’re still not wanting to address ) ICU patients but come to a completely different conclusion, that’s why I’m here. I’m not here because you’re not vaccinated. I repeat, I do not care. I’m here because AC loves to post garbage tweets that are incredibly easy to pick apart. I don’t care that he’s not vaccinated. If a subforum was created for the 2020 election, I’d probably be there too since it would be a breeding ground for conspiracy garbage - not because I love elections or have a vested interest.

If you don’t want to get one, cool, I don’t plan to get anymore either at this point based on the way the numbers are trending. 

[irv]

13 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Simplicity. People want to know their odds once fully vaccinated vs nothing or something in the middle. Can you imagine the confusion if there were 4 or 5 different categories of odds? We can’t even figure out what odds are in this thread with just two categories.

 

I could give two shits whether or not you want to get vaccinated or anyone else for that matter. I’ve never told a single person to get vaccinated. What you’re confusing is what you’re calling “defense of the vaccine” vs plain old defense of common sense. When you post stats that show 10% of the population is driving 30% ( which you’re still not wanting to address ) ICU patients but come to a completely different conclusion, that’s why I’m here. I’m not here because you’re not vaccinated. I repeat, I do not care. I’m here because AC loves to post garbage tweets that are incredibly easy to pick apart. I don’t care that he’s not vaccinated. If a subforum was created for the 2020 election, I’d probably be there too since it would be a breeding ground for conspiracy garbage - not because I love elections or have a vested interest.

If you don’t want to get one, cool, I don’t plan to get anymore either at this point based on the way the numbers are trending. 

Simplicity Now you're just being willfully ignorant... 

[akvanden]

16 minutes ago, irv said:

Simplicity Now you're just being willfully ignorant... 

The proof is in the pudding via this thread. They’re reporting on the two groups and you’re still just looking at absolute numbers and disregarding the rates of those two groups. I can only imagine if we now had five groups, you’d still just be looking at the absolute numbers with still no regard to the overall populations. If it makes you feel any better, those with one dose are probably helping the unvaccinated group in the severe stats.

Still no comment on the 10% causing 30%? You can just say no if you want.

[Deephaven]

Seems to me that someone isn't smart enough to understand 4th grade math.

[irv]

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

The proof is in the pudding via this thread. They’re reporting on the two groups and you’re still just looking at absolute numbers and disregarding the rates of those two groups. I can only imagine if we now had five groups, you’d still just be looking at the absolute numbers with still no regard to the overall populations. If it makes you feel any better, those with one dose are probably helping the unvaccinated group in the severe stats.

Still no comment on the 10% causing 30%? You can just say no if you want.

If you believe the numbers are accurate, even after the CDC admitted to quit following/recording breakthrough cases unless you were hospitalized or died, then by all means be my guest, but those that don't have a monetary investment in these vaccines who have actually followed real science, know this. Like I said above, nothing that has been written or shown to date has been 100% accurate, and if you haven't figured this out yet, then you never will. 

The precise number of these breakthrough cases is unknown, but figures released by states suggest it is at least several thousand. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has had a team monitoring breakthrough infections since February, has partial data but has not made it public.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...ng-vaccinated/

 

[akvanden]

12 minutes ago, irv said:

If you believe the numbers are accurate,

You posted the numbers - why are you wasting our time posting inaccurate numbers?

 

13 minutes ago, irv said:

even after the CDC admitted to quit following/recording breakthrough cases unless you were hospitalized or died,

The CDC doesn’t regulate the Ontario numbers you provided.

 

2 hours ago, akvanden said:

Still no comment on the 10% causing 30%? You can just say no if you want.

? 

[ArcticCrusher]

23 hours ago, akvanden said:

The proof is in the pudding via this thread. They’re reporting on the two groups and you’re still just looking at absolute numbers and disregarding the rates of those two groups. I can only imagine if we now had five groups, you’d still just be looking at the absolute numbers with still no regard to the overall populations. If it makes you feel any better, those with one dose are probably helping the unvaccinated group in the severe stats.

Still no comment on the 10% causing 30%? You can just say no if you want.

Why are you still wearing a mask and distancing if the vax is worth a shit?

 

It's not, again to those slow at the back of the class.  

 

[ArcticCrusher]

21 hours ago, akvanden said:

You posted the numbers - why are you wasting our time posting inaccurate numbers?

 

The CDC doesn’t regulate the Ontario numbers you provided.

 

? 

Process this idiot. 

Most people vaxed or not don't even know they have covid.

Most people vaxed or not have a better than 98% chance to not require hospitalization.

The vax does not decrease all case mortality, in fact it increases it. 

Keep the tunnel vision lens on.

[akvanden]

3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Why are you still wearing a mask and distancing if the vax is worth a shit?

I'm not, are you?

Read your link, interesting stuff, but contradicts a lot of your claims, which is strange that you posted it. 

1) "There is clear evidence that the adenovirus-vector vaccines reduced mortality." - you sure you want people to know about that?
2) "For the mRNA vaccines, on the other hand, there was no evidence of a mortality reduction. For every 100 deaths among the unvaccinated, there are 103 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 63 to 171 deaths. That is, the mRNA vaccines may reduce mortality a little bit, or they may increase it; we do not know. - guess they're not dropping everywhere like you claim from side effects?!?!?!? 

3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

The vax does not decrease all case mortality, in fact it increases it. 

Please see above.

 

You'll be pleased to hear I choose the J&J - is that the one you choose too? Thanks for verifying it's not horseshit after all!

Edited April 23, 2022 by akvanden

[Rod]

We had the wife’s grandpas funeral a couple weeks ago and at least 40 people I know got covid there and I believe all were vaccinated lol

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

I'm not, are you?

Read your link, interesting stuff, but contradicts a lot of your claims, which is strange that you posted it. 

1) "There is clear evidence that the adenovirus-vector vaccines reduced mortality." - you sure you want people to know about that?
2) "For the mRNA vaccines, on the other hand, there was no evidence of a mortality reduction. For every 100 deaths among the unvaccinated, there are 103 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 63 to 171 deaths. That is, the mRNA vaccines may reduce mortality a little bit, or they may increase it; we do not know. - guess they're not dropping everywhere like you claim from side effects?!?!?!? 

Please see above.

 

You'll be pleased to hear I choose the J&J - is that the one you choose too? Thanks for verify it's not horseshit after all!

I'm 100% in agreement with Martin as he's been correct since day one.  Ie unlike you his goalposts never changed, yours aren't even on the field anymore.

 

[Rod]

Buddy that’s around 25 is double shotted and he just told me he has the rones and has never been so sick 

[ArcticCrusher]

They are vaxxing the animals in the Toronto zoo.  But only if they give consent.

 

[Rod]

What in the ever loving fuck  

[ArcticCrusher]

This just means . . .

Data from Alberta one month apart.  Cases shifting in the triple vaxxed from 36% to 50%.

Are we still trying to kid ourselves?

The vaccine is beyond useless and is now giving negative effectiveness. 

This was forecasted with a leaky vaccine.

 

 

[Rod]

Hard to say if it’s negative affectivness or that the demographic of people getting the 3rd shot are at higher risk and the vaccine in reality does little to nothing 

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, ACE said:

Hard to say if it’s negative affectivness or that the demographic of people getting the 3rd shot are at higher risk and the vaccine in reality does little to nothing 

The vaccine uptake remained constant ie, flatline, so nothing changed except a shift in cases to the triple vaxxed.

 

[akvanden]

13 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

This just means . . .

Data from Alberta one month apart.  Cases shifting in the triple vaxxed from 36% to 50%.

Are we still trying to kid ourselves?

The vaccine is beyond useless and is now giving negative effectiveness. 

This was forecasted with a leaky vaccine.

 

 

So 10% of the population driving 23% of hospitalization means negative effective to you?
 

Let us know when it reaches 1:1 parity.
 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

35 minutes ago, akvanden said:

So 10% of the population driving 23% of hospitalization means negative effective to you?
 

Let us know when it reaches 1:1 parity.
 

 

36% of the population have been boosted and represent 50% of the cases.  AB is 80% vaxxed.  Let me know when you get a clue.

[ArcticCrusher]

For the really slow dumb people, this is the horseshit the left is trying to sheep the masses with again.

 

Where is the science?  Oh that's right, its from models.

 

Are we kidding ourselves.

 

 

[akvanden]

26 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

36% of the population have been boosted and represent 50% of the cases.  AB is 80% vaxxed.  Let me know when you get a clue.

90% of the population has has at least 1 dose.

10/90 * x = 23/77

Solve for x.

Actually, let me do it for you = 2.7x higher rate of hospitalizations in the unvaccinated.

[ArcticCrusher]

32 minutes ago, akvanden said:

90% of the population has has at least 1 dose.

10/90 * x = 23/77

Solve for x.

Actually, let me do it for you = 2.7x higher rate of hospitalizations in the unvaccinated.

 

Now go back and use actual data.  36% have been boosted yet represent 50% of the cases.  This is what you are calling a success for the gold standard in vaccines.  Also 76% of the entire population have been double or more vaxxed.  Again, I don't know by what measurement you can say this is a success.  Unless you are a complete hack.

 

[ArcticCrusher]

This is Ontario.