Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?

[davey83]

[redacted]

[anonymous-user]

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

No, I'm asking you a question following your comments. What's the probability rate for hospitilisation with covid?

Google is your friend;

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-da...

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsi...

What a poor show from you. These are not the figures that answer my question.

You asked a question based on balance of probability but yet you cannot answer a simple question based on your question/comment.

All mouth and no trousers.

You asked what the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19 was.

I provided you with the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19.

On what level of reality are you actually operating on?

I mean you are literally a moron.

I'm done, merry weekend folks!

MYOB enjoy your colouring in!

Your first link provides figures relative to 5 - 17 year olds. That's not what I asked.

The second link sets out how cases rises with age. Again, not answering the question.

Wrong. The first link is all age bands NOT just 5-7 year olds.

What planet ?

[survivalist]

V6 Pushfit said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

No, I'm asking you a question following your comments. What's the probability rate for hospitilisation with covid?

Google is your friend;

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-da...

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsi...

What a poor show from you. These are not the figures that answer my question.

You asked a question based on balance of probability but yet you cannot answer a simple question based on your question/comment.

All mouth and no trousers.

You asked what the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19 was.

I provided you with the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19.

On what level of reality are you actually operating on?

I mean you are literally a moron.

I'm done, merry weekend folks!

MYOB enjoy your colouring in!

Your first link provides figures relative to 5 - 17 year olds. That's not what I asked.

The second link sets out how cases rises with age. Again, not answering the question.

Wrong. The first link is all age bands NOT just 5-7 year olds.

What planet ?

Seems you need some reading comprehension lessons. MYOB is, correctly, saying that you provided data that compares all age groups groups to data for 5-17 groups (not 5-7 year olds as per your incorrect reply).

Again, it’s a question of scale. Using the 5-17 age group as a reference group is perfect if you want to show some worrying/alarmist numbers. The control group should be people over 70. Then you’d see how it’s not nearly such a big issue in those under 70.

It’s a bit like using a group if 3-10 year olds as reference group to show how out of control alcoholism is in over 18s. Guess what, compared to a group of people with no access to alcohol, alcohol is over a million times more prevalent in those that can actually buy alcohol.

Or looking at the amount of Alzheimer’s in 18 year olds.

Edited by survivalist on Friday 18th June 21:35

[anonymous-user]

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

No, I'm asking you a question following your comments. What's the probability rate for hospitilisation with covid?

Google is your friend;

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-da...

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsi...

What a poor show from you. These are not the figures that answer my question.

You asked a question based on balance of probability but yet you cannot answer a simple question based on your question/comment.

All mouth and no trousers.

You asked what the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19 was.

I provided you with the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19.

On what level of reality are you actually operating on?

I mean you are literally a moron.

I'm done, merry weekend folks!

MYOB enjoy your colouring in!

Your first link provides figures relative to 5 - 17 year olds. That's not what I asked.

The second link sets out how cases rises with age. Again, not answering the question.

Wrong. The first link is all age bands NOT just 5-7 year olds.

What planet ?

Seems you need some reading comprehension lessons. MYOB is, correctly, saying that you provided data that compares all age groups groups to data for 5-17 groups (not 5-7 year olds as per your incorrect reply).

Again, it’s a question of scale. Using the 5-17 age group as a reference group is perfect if you want to show some worrying/alarmist numbers. The control group should be people over 70. Then you’d see how it’s not nearly such a big issue in those under 70.

It’s a bit like using a group if 3-10 year olds as reference group to show how out of control alcoholism is in over 18s. Guess what, compared to a group of people with no access to alcohol, alcohol is over a million times more prevalent in those that can actually buy alcohol.

Or looking at the amount of Alzheimer’s in 18 year olds.

Edited by survivalist on Friday 18th June 21:35

It wasn’t me who provided the link but ignoring that invite t part of your reply, using the 5-17 year olds as a reference point is fine as the other bands can still be interpreted relative to eachother. It doesn’t matter where the reference point is in fact apart from to the numerically challenged.

[survivalist]

V6 Pushfit said:

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

No, I'm asking you a question following your comments. What's the probability rate for hospitilisation with covid?

Google is your friend;

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-da...

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsi...

What a poor show from you. These are not the figures that answer my question.

You asked a question based on balance of probability but yet you cannot answer a simple question based on your question/comment.

All mouth and no trousers.

You asked what the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19 was.

I provided you with the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19.

On what level of reality are you actually operating on?

I mean you are literally a moron.

I'm done, merry weekend folks!

MYOB enjoy your colouring in!

Your first link provides figures relative to 5 - 17 year olds. That's not what I asked.

The second link sets out how cases rises with age. Again, not answering the question.

Wrong. The first link is all age bands NOT just 5-7 year olds.

What planet ?

Seems you need some reading comprehension lessons. MYOB is, correctly, saying that you provided data that compares all age groups groups to data for 5-17 groups (not 5-7 year olds as per your incorrect reply).

Again, it’s a question of scale. Using the 5-17 age group as a reference group is perfect if you want to show some worrying/alarmist numbers. The control group should be people over 70. Then you’d see how it’s not nearly such a big issue in those under 70.

It’s a bit like using a group if 3-10 year olds as reference group to show how out of control alcoholism is in over 18s. Guess what, compared to a group of people with no access to alcohol, alcohol is over a million times more prevalent in those that can actually buy alcohol.

Or looking at the amount of Alzheimer’s in 18 year olds.

Edited by survivalist on Friday 18th June 21:35

It wasn’t me who provided the link but ignoring that invite t part of your reply, using the 5-17 year olds as a reference point is fine as the other bands can still be interpreted relative to eachother. It doesn’t matter where the reference point is in fact apart from to the numerically challenged.

Which the majority of people are, sadly by a number of influential people seeking to make a point. Using a group with a vanishingly small chance of even noticing they have contacted covid as the ‘reference’ group makes all the groups seem worryingly high to someone who is just glancing at the data. Which is why it’s so misleading.

In terms of the average newspaper reader, the location of the reference point certainly is important.

[anonymous-user]

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

No, I'm asking you a question following your comments. What's the probability rate for hospitilisation with covid?

Google is your friend;

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-da...

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsi...

What a poor show from you. These are not the figures that answer my question.

You asked a question based on balance of probability but yet you cannot answer a simple question based on your question/comment.

All mouth and no trousers.

You asked what the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19 was.

I provided you with the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19.

On what level of reality are you actually operating on?

I mean you are literally a moron.

I'm done, merry weekend folks!

MYOB enjoy your colouring in!

Your first link provides figures relative to 5 - 17 year olds. That's not what I asked.

The second link sets out how cases rises with age. Again, not answering the question.

Wrong. The first link is all age bands NOT just 5-7 year olds.

What planet ?

Seems you need some reading comprehension lessons. MYOB is, correctly, saying that you provided data that compares all age groups groups to data for 5-17 groups (not 5-7 year olds as per your incorrect reply).

Again, it’s a question of scale. Using the 5-17 age group as a reference group is perfect if you want to show some worrying/alarmist numbers. The control group should be people over 70. Then you’d see how it’s not nearly such a big issue in those under 70.

It’s a bit like using a group if 3-10 year olds as reference group to show how out of control alcoholism is in over 18s. Guess what, compared to a group of people with no access to alcohol, alcohol is over a million times more prevalent in those that can actually buy alcohol.

Or looking at the amount of Alzheimer’s in 18 year olds.

Edited by survivalist on Friday 18th June 21:35

It wasn’t me who provided the link but ignoring that invite t part of your reply, using the 5-17 year olds as a reference point is fine as the other bands can still be interpreted relative to eachother. It doesn’t matter where the reference point is in fact apart from to the numerically challenged.

Which the majority of people are, sadly by a number of influential people seeking to make a point. Using a group with a vanishingly small chance of even noticing they have contacted covid as the ‘reference’ group makes all the groups seem worryingly high to someone who is just glancing at the data. Which is why it’s so misleading.

In terms of the average newspaper reader, the location of the reference point certainly is important.

Agreed but if people can’t get a grasp on the basics of the data in the link they are best not using it to make a point on here.

[survivalist]

V6 Pushfit said:

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

survivalist said:

V6 Pushfit said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

Prof Prolapse said:

MYOB said:

No, I'm asking you a question following your comments. What's the probability rate for hospitilisation with covid?

Google is your friend;

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-da...

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsi...

What a poor show from you. These are not the figures that answer my question.

You asked a question based on balance of probability but yet you cannot answer a simple question based on your question/comment.

All mouth and no trousers.

You asked what the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19 was.

I provided you with the probability of hospitalisation from Covid-19.

On what level of reality are you actually operating on?

I mean you are literally a moron.

I'm done, merry weekend folks!

MYOB enjoy your colouring in!

Your first link provides figures relative to 5 - 17 year olds. That's not what I asked.

The second link sets out how cases rises with age. Again, not answering the question.

Wrong. The first link is all age bands NOT just 5-7 year olds.

What planet ?

Seems you need some reading comprehension lessons. MYOB is, correctly, saying that you provided data that compares all age groups groups to data for 5-17 groups (not 5-7 year olds as per your incorrect reply).

Again, it’s a question of scale. Using the 5-17 age group as a reference group is perfect if you want to show some worrying/alarmist numbers. The control group should be people over 70. Then you’d see how it’s not nearly such a big issue in those under 70.

It’s a bit like using a group if 3-10 year olds as reference group to show how out of control alcoholism is in over 18s. Guess what, compared to a group of people with no access to alcohol, alcohol is over a million times more prevalent in those that can actually buy alcohol.

Or looking at the amount of Alzheimer’s in 18 year olds.

Edited by survivalist on Friday 18th June 21:35

It wasn’t me who provided the link but ignoring that invite t part of your reply, using the 5-17 year olds as a reference point is fine as the other bands can still be interpreted relative to eachother. It doesn’t matter where the reference point is in fact apart from to the numerically challenged.

Which the majority of people are, sadly by a number of influential people seeking to make a point. Using a group with a vanishingly small chance of even noticing they have contacted covid as the ‘reference’ group makes all the groups seem worryingly high to someone who is just glancing at the data. Which is why it’s so misleading.

In terms of the average newspaper reader, the location of the reference point certainly is important.

Agreed but if people can’t get a grasp on the basics of the data in the link they are best not using it to make a point on here.

Absolutely. Which is why the vast majority of people shouldn’t be concerned by contracting covid. Yet somehow you seem to be concerned and want people to get vaccinated to stop the spread of something that represents virtually no risk to anyone under the age of 50?

Understand the risk to the older/larger folk, but they’ve had ample chance to have the vaccine, so no reason for the unconcerned to get vaccinated if they are not inclined to do so.

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[davey83]

[redacted]

[67Dino]

[redacted]

[davey83]

I will just say i personally don't take to the way cases are being recorded. I have concerns towards the way PCR is being used.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fai...

By Peter Andrews, Irish science journalist and writer based in London. He has a background in life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in genetics.

Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.

They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid.

The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

Would you like more information on the matter?

[anonymous-user]

67Dino said:

Not bingo at all. If you only look at Northern Hemisphere countries you might easily conclude that the virus is seasonal (first 2 graphs below comparing flu season in blue to coronavirus peaks in Canada and US). There does appear to be a fit.

However, when you look at Southern Hemisphere countries (second 2 graphs, for Australia and Brazil) you can see it’s just coincidence, and that there’s no correlation at all.

The peaks and troughs you see in Covid cases correlate with lockdown measures, not the local seasons.

We know that there was very little seasonal flu this year due to the lockdown, we also know that the peaks were due to Covid not flu due to the diagnoses.
We also know that the vax is 90% effective after 2 doses so there still circa 5 million who would succumb if they got it. A major vector in any current or future wave will be the unvaccinated, so despite their belief they are immune there'stt the additional threat to other people which seems to be something they wish to gloss over in the interests of maintaining a crusade of flannel to avoid a ten second jab.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 20th June 20:17

[grumbledoak]

"We" aren't very good at maths.

[davey83]

[redacted]

[anonymous-user]

^ We also know that the flannel referred to includes the type of straw man arguments as brilliantly displayed above

[Freakuk]

So my previous post in this thread I referred to a friend who was set against the vaccine and the whole Covid thing, the usual it's just flu blah blah blah...

Anyway him and his wife have just had a week away in the UK, both felt ill, both tested positive... last time I spoke to him he felt like crap, tried calling him this morning.... nothing... I suspect he's in bed feeling god awful, hopefully nothing worse....

Hard to resist saying I told you so...

[bmwmike]

Freakuk said:

So my previous post in this thread I referred to a friend who was set against the vaccine and the whole Covid thing, the usual it's just flu blah blah blah...

Anyway him and his wife have just had a week away in the UK, both felt ill, both tested positive... last time I spoke to him he felt like crap, tried calling him this morning.... nothing... I suspect he's in bed feeling god awful, hopefully nothing worse....

Hard to resist saying I told you so...

Good stuff. Was he also anti mask? Do keep us posted.

[Freakuk]

bmwmike said:

Freakuk said:

So my previous post in this thread I referred to a friend who was set against the vaccine and the whole Covid thing, the usual it's just flu blah blah blah...

Anyway him and his wife have just had a week away in the UK, both felt ill, both tested positive... last time I spoke to him he felt like crap, tried calling him this morning.... nothing... I suspect he's in bed feeling god awful, hopefully nothing worse....

Hard to resist saying I told you so...

Good stuff. Was he also anti mask? Do keep us posted.

Of course, never had a mask whenever I've been out with him....

Don't get me wrong here, I always wear a mask, sanitise etc but I still managed to get it last year, I'm surprised he hadn't got it sooner.