Are you mentally strong?

[ArcticCrusher]

13 hours ago, akvanden said:

Bummer, looks like you're the fool again. Once adjusted for population size, not telling the story you and your twitter friends are peddling.

 

Before changing the subject like you always do and posting some new misleading tweet, what are your thoughts on this? How do you feel about the unvaccinated still leading the charge?

 

Dude, 14% of the population is unvaxxed compared to 52% boosted.  Yet the boosted represent 74% of deaths compared to 9% unvaxxed.  What funny math do you not understand.

 

[akvanden]

48 minutes ago, EvilBird said:

Can’t stand pencil pushing cubicle douchebags like you. You are a nerd using propaganda numbers instead of reality. You and I know why you push the vax so bad…
 

You have been saying the same thing for months on end. Your point is minuscule. The force fed Vax is a failure. 
 

 

Propaganda numbers? No, I’m just using ACs numbers, remember? He found them. He was the one who posted the British Columbia data and then asked me what I thought about it. And I’m sorry you can’t stand it.

I think you mean my website vaccines4cas$$h.com? No conflict of interest there.  Otherwise I have no idea why I’d be incentivized to keep people healthy. No clue.  I wonder who’s incentivizing me to have strong opinions on Ukraine? Or Jan 6th? Or election fraud? Do you know who I can collect from on that?

Please stop confusing peoples ability to easily ferret out bad math as supporting something. I’ve never promoted it, if you don’t want it, super.  Could care less (unless you post something completely stupid). I don’t plan on getting anymore. Cool? Can we be friends again?

[ArcticCrusher]

6 minutes ago, akvanden said:

No, dummy. There’s not three groups in the example. This can’t be anymore straight forward. In this example, Group 1 is fully vaxed, group 2 is fully vaxed plus booster that you just want to “add together.” You can just add them together, right? 20 out of 100k + 25 out of 100k = 45 out of 100k now? Right?!? That’s your math?

I fixed the headers for you so you’re  not confused.

 

Please, any another person who understands math, jump in at any point.

 

 

Does that look like the vax is working?

Just look at deaths now, the chart I posted is brutal for the vaxxed and does not include adverse reactions or excess vax deaths.  Complete failure, not sure what leg you are trying to stand on here you are looking like an total idiot.

Don't say you were not warned, the real experts got this right, the fda, cdc should just kill themselves.

[ArcticCrusher]

6 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Propaganda numbers? No, I’m just using ACs numbers, remember? He found them. He was the one who posted the British Columbia data and then asked me what I thought about it. And I’m sorry you can’t stand it.

I think you mean my website vaccines4cas$$h.com? No conflict of interest there.  Otherwise I have no idea why I’d be incentivized to keep people healthy. No clue.  I wonder who’s incentivizing me to have strong opinions on Ukraine? Or Jan 6th? Or election fraud? Do you know who I can collect from on that?

Please stop confusing peoples ability to easily ferret out bad math as supporting something. I’ve never promoted it, if you don’t want it, super.  Could care less (unless you post something completely stupid). I don’t plan on getting anymore. Cool? Can we be friends again?

The vax is keeping people healthy?

What a fountain of misinformation.

[EvilBird]

1 minute ago, akvanden said:

Propaganda numbers? No, I’m just using ACs numbers, remember? He found them. He was the one who posted the British Columbia data and then asked me what I thought about it. And I’m sorry you can’t stand it.

I think you mean my website vaccines4cas$$h.com? No conflict of interest there.  Otherwise I have no idea why I’d be incentivized to keep people healthy. No clue.  I wonder who’s incentivizing me to have strong opinions on Ukraine? Or Jan 6th? Or election fraud? Do you know who I can collect from on that?

Please stop confusing peoples ability to easily ferret out bad math as supporting something. I’ve never promoted it, if you don’t want it, super.  Could care less (unless you post something completely stupid). I don’t plan on getting anymore. Cool? Can we be friends again?

No friend of mine voted for Joe Biden.

If ya didnt like Trump, I get it , ya should have not voted at all. 

You sure picked a hell of a time to vote Democrat for claiming to be a self pronounced "Conservative my whole life".  

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, EvilBird said:

No friend of mine voted for Joe Biden.

If ya didnt like Trump, I get it , ya should have not voted at all. 

You sure picked a hell of a time to vote Democrat for claiming to be a self pronounced "Conservative my whole life".  

24% approval among independents as of today.  What a failure.

[Plissken]

39 minutes ago, akvanden said:

No, dummy. There’s not three groups in the example. This can’t be anymore straight forward. In this example, Group 1 is fully vaxed, group 2 is fully vaxed plus booster that you just want to “add together.” You can just add them together, right? 20 out of 100k + 25 out of 100k = 45 out of 100k now? Right?!? That’s your math?

I fixed the headers for you so you’re  not confused.

 

Please, any another person who understands math, jump in at any point.

 

 

Using Rooster math, and working backwards to determine total number of cases would result in a value of 585.  But we know there are 300 (100 + 200) actual cases between the two groups so he’s off by a factor of nearly double.  I sure wouldn’t want him doing my taxes.  

1,300,000 / 100,000 * 45 = 585

Edited June 16, 2022 by Plissken

[Plissken]

The mentally strong need a math class. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Plissken

[EvilBird]

4 minutes ago, Plissken said:

The mentally strong need Fake math class. 

fixed 

[Roosting]

45 minutes ago, akvanden said:

No, dummy. There’s not three groups in the example. This can’t be anymore straight forward. In this example, Group 1 is fully vaxed, group 2 is fully vaxed plus booster that you just want to “add together.” You can just add them together, right? 20 out of 100k + 25 out of 100k = 45 out of 100k now? Right?!? That’s your math?

I fixed the headers for you so you’re  not confused.

 

Please, any another person who understands math, jump in at any point.

 

 

So cases per 100K for unvax is just for the unvax not 100K of general population? Is that the faulty math you are using?

The provincial data is based on 100K of total population not cases per vax status as you are manipulating it. That's why it mirrors the % based on total population for infections almost exactly and why the chance of infection for vax or unvax is 1:1 like the chart shows

[EvilBird]

29 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Using Booster math, and working backwards is what I do

fixed

[ArcticCrusher]

20 minutes ago, Plissken said:

The mentally strong need a math class. 

If the unvaxxed represent 14% (out of 5.4 mil) of the total population and 9% of the total deaths, what math class shows your bullshit?  Now look at the boosted.

Just how fucking stupid are you?

[akvanden]

31 minutes ago, Roosting said:

So cases per 100K for unvax is just for the unvax not 100K of general population? Is that the faulty math you are using?

The provincial data is based on 100K of total population not cases per vax status as you are manipulating it. That's why it mirrors the % based on total population for infections almost exactly and why the chance of infection for vax or unvax is 1:1 like the chart shows

Double down #3?!?!?

Ahhh, no, wrong again. You’re thinking in absolute terms. If, for example, there was 100k total population and three bars in the graph were the absolute numbers of cases, then in absolute terms you could add up the two vax groups and compare to unvaxxed.

But that’s not what’s happening. there are three distinct population sets. All three are different sizes, so they’re normalizing to take that into account. They’re looking at just the vax group and saying there’s y amount of people in this group and x amount are sick. They then normalize that into a rate per 100k of that group.  they do the same with the other two groups so you can compare apples to apples. There’s no need to break it down into a per 100k if your looking in absolute terms if total population. Rate (apples to apples) vs absolute (apples to oranges).

 

Do I need to add in the unvaxxed group #3 for you to wrap your head around this? No worries, IRV gets confused with this all the time too.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by akvanden

[Deephaven]

OMG.  All this in a mentally strong thread.  Fucking priceless.

[ArcticCrusher]

53 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Double down #3?!?!?

Ahhh, no, wrong again. You’re thinking in absolute terms. If, for example, there was 100k total population and three bars in the graph were the absolute numbers of cases, then in absolute terms you could add up the two vax groups and compare to unvaxxed.

But that’s not what’s happening. there are three distinct population sets. All three are different sizes, so they’re normalizing to take that into account. They’re looking at just the vax group and saying there’s y amount of people in this group and x amount are sick. They then normalize that into a rate per 100k of that group.  they do the same with the other two groups so you can compare apples to apples. There’s no need to break it down into a per 100k if your looking in absolute terms if total population. Rate (apples to apples) vs absolute (apples to oranges).

 

Do I need to add in the unvaxxed group #3 for you to wrap your head around this? No worries, IRV gets confused with this all the time too.

 

 

There's 5.3 million total pop and 14% is unvaxxed and 54% is boosted.  The 100k is irrelevant.

[ArcticCrusher]

Now add the excess deaths.

 

[Plissken]

2 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

If the unvaxxed represent 14% (out of 5.4 mil) of the total population and 9% of the total deaths, what math class shows your bullshit?  Now look at the boosted.

Just how fucking stupid are you?

Almost all age groups are at 90% or greater vaccination status.  92% of those 70+ have at least two doses.  94% have at least one dose.  So unvaxxed make up only 6% of the highest death risk group.  You’ve got to go all the way down to the 12-17 age group to get to 89% having at least one dose.  Majority of the unvaxxed are 5-11 which have almost no risk of death.  
 

[ArcticCrusher]

49 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Almost all age groups are at 90% or greater vaccination status.  92% of those 70+ have at least two doses.  94% have at least one dose.  So unvaxxed make up only 6% of the highest death risk group.  You’ve got to go all the way down to the 12-17 age group to get to 89% having at least one dose.  Majority of the unvaxxed are 5-11 which have almost no risk of death.  
 

I see you're continuing to grasp at straws.  

[Plissken]

36 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

I see you're continuing to grasp at straws.  

Actually that’s you - cherry picking data without any research into what’s behind the shiny objects in search of validation.  Prove me wrong.  I’ll wait.  

[Rod]

[Deephaven]

4 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

I see you're continuing to grasp at straws.  

That is what your flock does.  It has been proven every time you post anything from twitter on here.  Fucking hilarious.  You are mentally not strong.

[ArcticCrusher]

12 hours ago, Plissken said:

Actually that’s you - cherry picking data without any research into what’s behind the shiny objects in search of validation.  Prove me wrong.  I’ll wait.  

Why would msm delete this story.

 

[ArcticCrusher]

12 hours ago, Plissken said:

Actually that’s you - cherry picking data without any research into what’s behind the shiny objects in search of validation.  Prove me wrong.  I’ll wait.  

If 54% of the population is boosted and the boosted represent more than 54% of deaths, what does that imply?

[ArcticCrusher]

8 hours ago, Deephaven said:

That is what your flock does.  It has been proven every time you post anything from twitter on here.  Fucking hilarious.  You are mentally not strong.

See my post above.  Do you need a peer review?

[Deephaven]

Another grasp on your end. Completely unrelated to all the other Twitter quotes in this thread.  And of course you ignored responding to how that was refuted in the thread already.  You are a mental midget.  Go baaaa somewhere with your flock.