Vaccine or not?

#18,177
#18,177
AshG said:
I downloaded and read the full Scotland report. I don't have time to do a point by point analysis and comparison against CovidTruthNet's analysis (have to take daughter to school), but I can say with full certainty that CTN is being disengenuous by not providing the detailed (or even abstract) summaries that provide context to the graphs presented..

I suggest anyone who wants the most clear picture to read the Scotland Report for themselves, especially the section warning against bias in interpreting the charts in isolation.
Click to expand...


I read the warning about bias. Basically they are saying here are the numbers but please do not use these numbers to form a negative opinion on the vaccines. The numbers in Scotland are what they say they are and there really aren't a lot of ways that you can twist them to say anything other then what they are saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#18,180
#18,180
VolinWayne said:
I read the warning about bias. Basically they are saying here are the numbers but please do not use these numbers to form a negative opinion on the vaccines. The numbers in Scotland are what they say they are and there really aren't a lot of ways that you can twist them to say anything other then what they are saying.
Click to expand...

And what exactly are they saying? In your own words, please.
 
#18,181
#18,181
I'm not really sure why it's so difficult for you to read this data but I will break it down for you how I interpret this.

According to the data we can see that the case rate per 100,000 indivisible is approximately

Unvaccinated individuals= 200

1 dose vaccinated individuals= 300

2 dose vaccinated individuals= 425

3 dose or booster= 325

Screenshot_20220120-114942_Drive.jpg
 
#18,184
#18,184
RockyTop85 said:
I agree that nothing anybody here says will make you look more dumb than thinking you can pull off that “forgot you existed” line after going back looking for a 4 month old post.

That being the case, and since you’re obviously trolling, I regret to inform you I could not be less interested without being sedated.

Best of luck.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that response isn't gonna get you anywhere. Who do you think you just impressed?

Look, I get it, man. I already knew how you'd answer, which is what makes this laughable (sadly). Let me know if you ever get around to knowing what the 'vaccine' does.
 
#18,185
#18,185
VolinWayne said:
I'm not really sure why it's so difficult for you to read this data but I will break it down for you how I interpret this.

According to the data we can see that the case rate per 100,000 indivisible is approximately

Unvaccinated individuals= 200

1 dose vaccinated individuals= 300

2 dose vaccinated individuals= 425

3 dose or booster= 325

View attachment 429513
Click to expand...

So given the high percentage rate of vaccination and vaccination +1 rates in Scotland, the unvaccinated are still headed to the hospital at a higher percentage rate than the vaccinated. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother and Vjcvette
#18,186
#18,186
AshG said:
So given the high percentage rate of vaccination and vaccination +1 rates in Scotland, the unvaccinated are still headed to the hospital at a higher percentage rate than the vaccinated. Got it.
Click to expand...

Yea. The numbers are overwhelming
 
#18,188
#18,188
AshG said:
So given the high percentage rate of vaccination and vaccination +1 rates in Scotland, the unvaccinated are still headed to the hospital at a higher percentage rate than the vaccinated. Got it.
Click to expand...


In what world is 2 out of 100,000 a higher number then 4 out of 100,000?
It's comical watching the goalposts being constantly moved as the narrative needs to change. Just 6 short months ago it was "if you are vaccinated you will not get covid". Now it's "4 out of 100,000 (double vaccinated) is better then 2 out of 100,000 (unvaccinated). It's pretty pathetic actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#18,190
#18,190
Offset Eye said:
Yeah, that response isn't gonna get you anywhere. Who do you think you just impressed?

Look, I get it, man. I already knew how you'd answer, which is what makes this laughable (sadly). Let me know if you ever get around to knowing what the 'vaccine' does.
Click to expand...
You’re here to impress people?
 
#18,192
#18,192
LouderVol said:
Did I miss it? I thought that chart was per 100k of that population.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was a bit confused by his argument myself. I had to go back and double check what I posted. You can't twist those numbers in any way other then what they say. It's really kind of dumb for us to even argue about it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#18,193
#18,193
VolinWayne said:
In what world is 2 out of 100,000 a higher number then 4 out of 100,000?
It's comical watching the goalposts being constantly moved as the narrative needs to change. Just 6 short months ago it was "if you are vaccinated you will not get covid". Now it's "4 out of 100,000 (double vaccinated) is better then 2 out of 100,000 (unvaccinated). It's pretty pathetic actually.
Click to expand...

Statistics Basics

There's no moving goalposts, just your innumeracy and desire for the numbers to match your message.
 
#18,196
#18,196
AshG said:
No, 100k is just the baseline number they decided to use to keep the comparison out of decimal places as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Tl;dr version: I am not understanding your complaints on their chart.

100k has been a pretty normal number used when talking about a country, so I dont see a slant in them using it. Heck I think our states use that number as well as the basis, and I know Atlanta uses 100k. They would have to go down to what, 100? To get decimals. That seems like an unreasonably small metric to use.

Any way you change that 100k number up or down the relation is going to stay the same. As a rate fewer unvaxxed are getting sick (or whatever this chart said) than their vaxxed counterparts. And they even adjusted the youngest out, who dont get sick and are unvaxxed, which would have helped the unvaxxed rate.

The only way 100k could slant the numbers is if there were less than 100k of a category. 50 people out of the total 50k pop would be 100 out of 100k, but there wouldnt even be 100 in real life. Considering Scotland is more vaxxed than not it again seems like that would help the vaxxed numbers not the unvaxxed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188 and VolinWayne
#18,200
#18,200
MurphyVol said:
To be fair, it didn't say he wasn't vaccinated. It said he was against the mandate. Some of us are vaccinated and anti-mandate
Click to expand...

From another article I found:

"When the interviewer said, "We're being controlled by everybody", he replied, "Yeah, I know. But not me. If I die, I die, but I'm not going to be controlled.""

If I were a betting cat lady, I'd go with unvaxxed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top