How About That?

[XponentialChaos]

Maybe you should troll someone who appreciates you.

Someone’s getting defensive. I’m just trying to help you.

Clearly I’m not the only one who thinks you’re a conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat moron.

 

[Lastamender]

You must be slow or have some kind of learning deficiency. How many times has this been explained to you?! And you still don’t get it! Wow

I do not believe lies. That is your job.

 

[Lastamender]

Someone’s getting defensive. I’m just trying to help you.

Clearly I’m not the only one who thinks you’re a conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat moron.

Do I care? Uh, no.

 

[Slade3200]

I do not believe lies. That is your job.

I dont believe lies either. You dont think you believe lies but that’s all you deal in… Mr Conspiracy Theory… I’m just gonna call you CT from now on

 

[XponentialChaos]

Do I care? Uh, no.

You care enough to respond. That’s a start.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lot of weak minds out there that are BEGGING for a juicy conspiracy that can't understand LYING about or with statistics. The hulk of flesh telling you that Pfizer lied about the results of it's clinical trials because they quoted a

RELATIVE risk vs ABSOLUTE risk

will never understand why he FALLS for someone deviously playing fast with statistical definitions to deliver a HUGE stinking conspiracy theory for you to lap up.
..

All they did was point out that ANYONES risk (not refined by age, occupation, etc) of GETTING COVID in the pandemic was a relatively small number which they put at 0.88% of the entire population. Note: that before the VAX - that low number was WIPING OUT Nursing homes and the elderly in HUGE percentages compared to young and healthy. So their "fear factor" simplification is not EVEN a good predictor of INDIVIDUAL risk.

Now if take their ABSOLUTE numbers and divide vax covid cases/unvaxxed covid -- YOU STILL GET 95% protection OVER THE UNVAXXED -- that's the RELATIVE immunity and that is what counts.

They scare you with simple slight of hand and smear an entire system of health professionals who were IN with Pfizer on this supposed deception.

There IS no deception. Folk need TWO PIECES of info to determine whether the vaccines will reduce their disease IF THEY GET covid.

1) Find the ACTUAL age group ABSOLUTE numbers for YOU contracting CVid. If your age group is 5 to 10 times or more lower than a 0.88 average risk of CONTRACTING -- you might not need the shots. And if y0u have any chronic pre-existing conditions regardless of age -- get the shots.

2) Know that WITH the vaccine over the AVERAGE population -- that you will get a 95% RELATIVE protection over PEOPLE WHO GET COVID without the shots.

It's NOT a lie or misrepresentation to not factor in the GENERAL POPULATION AVERAGE risk of GETTING covid. It's a question of WHEN YOU GET COVID what that 95% relative protection over the unvaxxed is worth to you.

And it's been a great deal for the 1st 6 months of protection. The vaccines dont seem to hold up longer than that -- and PARTICULARLY to an OMICRON variant where the mRNA signal it carries has changed so much for Omicron.

 

[flacaltenn]

Only possible flaw in the Pfizer clinical trials was they stopped TOO EARLY and still started distributing the vaccine. AND that maybe their demographics in some race, sex, pregnancy, age groups might have been a little slim.

But there was NOTHING WRONG with the way they calculated the efficacy of the drug.

 

[Lastamender]

thecovidworld.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com

Contact with an owner of thecovidworld.com domain name.

thecovidworld.com