yes thanks for prove you sick in za head try steal me porno bookmarks

Thank you for the link, the only data I had was for Quebec and they stopped updating it a while ago for transmission rates.

Looking around on their website I stumbled on this chart here which compares subgroups based on their vaccination status and an equal population (100,000 for positive tests and 1,000,000 for deaths and hospitalizations). The values aren’t the same for each age group and I can’t lump them all together without wasting time trying to figure out the % of the population in each age bracket. Let’s use 60-79 to analyze the data quickly…

564/100,000 non-vaccinated positive tests vs. 757/100,000 fully-vaxxed positive tests. Interestingly the vaccine doesn’t seem to prevent transmission. I don’t know the current restrictions imposed on non-vaccinated in France, which could force them to stay home more and lower their risk of infection. Still, a very interesting result.

300/1,000,000 non-vaccinated hospitalized vs. 155/1,000,000 fully-vaxxed hospitalized, 67/1,000,000 non-vaccinated in emergency care vs. 30/1,000,000 fully-vaxxed in emergency care and 39/1,000,000 non-vaccinated deaths vs. 16/1,000,000 fully-vaxxed deaths. This would mean staying up-to-date with the vaccination halves the risk of hospitalization or death from Covid-19. If we compare with vaccinated people who didn’t take the boosters their risk appears to be similar to non-vaxxed.

Thanks again for the link, I’ll keep an eye on their updates, it’s hard finding easy to analyze and trustworthy data.

e/ I suppose the difference between the chart I posted and yours is the time frame, yours being a bit more recent but on a shorter time span.

e2/ Do you know if they have the same kind of chart for people under 40?

This post was edited by Chainsaw47 on Nov 19 2022 02:08pm

Imagine if these clowns were doctors & epidemiologists...

I'm totally intrigued by the reality that if a vaccine for all disease including aging was developed, that about 50% of the planet would rather just die while they scream about it on social media.

The end result of my calculations is the same as Pfizer. Are you saying Pfizers numbers are meaningless? I could plug in their population size and deaths in each group and come to the same numbers. They got their results from a real world study they conducted. How exactly is it meaningless?

Relative risk reduction for an entire population is high because unhealthy people are involved and for that reason the vaccine would help people whose survival rate isn't high to begin with.

Relative risk reduction for a healthy young group of people would be nearly zero because in both groups there would be no difference in mortality.

...

This post was edited by tugofpeace on Nov 19 2022 02:40pm

Do it.

Good post.
Few things, these numbers seems to favor vaccination but the sample is pretty low, when mine concerns the whole country and is quite recent.
Ofc all restrictions have been lifted since long in France. No masks anywhere.
The TV doctors are still recommending vaccines despite deaths and horrible conditions amongst the victims of pfizer and co. We even found out new diseases due to covid vaccines lmao. like 2.0 thrombosis
Nobody taking stats on heart failures and vaccination, that would be a funny one to do.
Ursula von der leyen still hiding her private conversation with pfizer 's ceo.
pfizer imposing secrets private tribunals incase they get attacked in justice in america.
everything is fine in a perfect world.




If ... knives wouldn't cut skin.. if if .. REEEEE



professors and nobel prize always been against vaccination/masks/lockdowns and massive hysteria in general.

TV doctors and corrupted ones were all over medias though, that's why you're confused since you never did science you couldnt make the difference between thoses.

This post was edited by Melatonina on Nov 19 2022 02:53pm

Doing it would be a waste of my time. 95% is Pfizers own number calculated from their own data. I literally said in my first post that I used simple numbers so that you guys could dissect my argument easier. Much easier to analyze 1000 sample size with 50 deaths rather than 44017 sample size with 379 deaths.

I could absolutely do the math for you using Pfizers population size and deaths but then you'd just weasel your way out of it and start attacking some other obscure irrelevant point.

Until you prove why my argument is meaningless all you're doing is deflecting and moving the goalposts because you have no actual credible quantifiable response.

This post was edited by tugofpeace on Nov 19 2022 03:08pm

It isn’t.

I’m not even arguing if the 95% number is correct or not (it isn’t), I’m just arguing that your original post isn’t disproving anything, just pointing out the difference between relative and absolute risk. Hence why the argument is meaningless. If you want to have a meaningful argument, just do the math on real-world data, like the chart I posted on post #62.

Yeah, this is 100% true. And the majority would identify as Republican.