Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NEVER AGAIN, can we allow people to be forced into science by stupid people. This is the danger... once you force people to do X... the people who are forcing it don't have to be right about any of it.
The people in charge are ignoring 1/2 the science and yet... they are never removed.
Yes, when coerced there needs to be no allowance for individual choice or reasoning, or explanation.
Booster shots appear to be a short-term approach to tackling a time-sensitive pandemic. AFAIK, the best long-term approach has yet to be determined, although it seems likely it will become seasonal, much like influenza.
Meanwhile damage is done.
That's certainly no remedy.
The difference between absolute and relative ... just more statistic tricks.
The purpose of the booster is to lower the hospitalization rate. It's not a trick. You won't be happy if you (or a relative or a friend) end up at the ICU but there are no beds available because of COVID-19.
Hmm, I'm not sure you correctly understand what is meant by statistical significance.
Presumably you meant vaccinated and boosted.
Some math:
(2.4-1.8)/2.4 = 25%.
It's say that's a noticeable difference.
Yes, the terminology , as expected, is not well maintained. I am well used to it since food studies have been politicized for decades.
This study may very well have statistical significance, if the data was randomized and the sample was large enough. What it is lacking is clinical significance if the relative risk is 100% while if absolute risk is .01%. This is thee same sort of garbage used to promote statins. The relative risk numbers are impressive but the absolute risk of all cause mortality is about nil for most people.
Vaccinations are going to have a lot of statistical noise like healthy user bias and demographics..
yeah,.no. I'm ok with a yearly, just like a flu shot, but 4 months is hypochondriac level,...lol.
As I have posted here several times, if there is a small risk in the vaccines, as claimed, what is the risk of injecting the vaccine over and over and over into your system?
Last edited by bluesjuke; 01-12-2022 at 09:28 AM..
And adjust that death figure to account for all the deaths that were caused by something else besides Covid but improperly classified as Covid and it would be even lower still.
The CDC director very recently said 75% of Covid deaths had 4 commodities. This is going to said harsh, but its true, they were going to pass anyways. Yes Covid may have been the nail on the coffin, the straw that broke the camels back, but we need to at least talk about being healthy.
Can we do that. Stop talking 24/7 about Big Pharma products and talk about getting sun, breathing fresh air, eating real food, stop smoking, etc
The purpose of the booster is to lower the hospitalization rate. It's not a trick. You won't be happy if you (or a relative or a friend) end up at the ICU but there are no beds available because of COVID-19.
This kind of manipulation is why those arguing for this are branded as liars. The trick was the use of relative risk in statistics and you are propping up what was unsaid to argue against.
There have been no lockdowns in the US. It’s a hyperbolic term used by politicians and media.
True lockdowns are presently in force in limited regions in China and India.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.