The Coronavirus, not the beer

[tw]1552729726443298816[/tw]

Imagine spending time being a shill for Big Pharma telling healthy people to 'get the jab'.
 
reply to zuby

[tw]1547569383509147654[/tw]

Just eyeballing looks like the unvaccinated are twice as likely to die. Keep pushing the deza boyz. You get an A+ for persistence. Something to write home about.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
reply to zuby

[tw]1547569383509147654[/tw]

Just eyeballing looks like the unvaccinated are twice as likely to die. Keep pushing the deza boyz. You get an A+ for persistence. Something to write home about.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence to indicate it was a good decision for healthy people to take the vaccine. And everything about far superior immunity post natural infection easily allows the math to work where it never made sense for them to “get the jab”.

An overwhelming percentage of deaths are found in very specific subsets of people. Continuing to pretend otherwise is the true malpractice.
 
nsacpi said:
reply to zuby

[tw]1547569383509147654[/tw]

Just eyeballing looks like the unvaccinated are twice as likely to die. Keep pushing the deza boyz. You get an A+ for persistence. Something to write home about.
Click to expand...

Help a non academic expert out...

If I look at say 50-59 year old chart.

I am reading that 13% of the population did not take the life saving jab. And I'm reading that 13% of COVID deaths in May of 22 we're people without a life saving jab

Is that reading it incorrectly?
 
sturg33 said:
Help a non academic expert out...

If I look at say 50-59 year old chart.

I am reading that 13% of the population did not take the life saving jab. And I'm reading that 13% of COVID deaths in May of 22 we're people without a life saving jab

Is that reading it incorrectly?
Click to expand...

Two things to consider.

1) Men and women have different mortality rates. So you would want to disaggregate by sex and take that into account.

2) It is better to go year by year than 10 year buckets. My guess is 59 year olds have worse outcomes than 50 year olds (both vaccinated and unvaccinated). And more 59 year olds are vaccinated than 50 year olds. Rinse and repeat for every 10 year bucket. So if you have the data by year and sex that will give you better comparisons than going by 10 year buckets with both sexes included.

see graph below which does both

FXoSIcwVsAANli4
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
Two things to consider.

1) Men and women have different mortality rates. So you would want to disaggregate by sex and take that into account.

2) It is better to go year by year than 10 year buckets. My guess is 59 year olds have worse outcomes than 50 year olds (both vaccinated and unvaccinated). And more 59 year olds are vaccinated than 50 year olds. Rinse and repeat for every 10 year bucket. So if you have the data by year and sex that will give you better comparisons than going by 10 year buckets with both sexes included.
Click to expand...

So was I reading the zuby chart incorrectly or not?
 
nsacpi said:
i dunno...there is an expert way of reading it...and other ways of reading it...i don't know which method you were using
Click to expand...

I read it as roughly the same percentage of covid deaths were from people unvaccinated as percentage of people who were unvaccinated
 
sturg33 said:
I read it as roughly the same percentage of covid deaths were from people unvaccinated as percentage of people who were unvaccinated
Click to expand...

it is a reasonable way to read it

there were some responses to zuby that showed why the graphs might be misleading and it wasn't difficult for me to find them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top