Vaccination Countdown to 70/80%

[dev553344]

Who knows what to believe...
Some experts say that the variants become weaker
Others say that the vaccines are creating the variants
But these experts are being censored and that is the mark of a pseudoscience
Debate should never be avoided in science and so i don't trust the mainstream narrative trying to avoid debate

One thing is for sure... These vaccines are not working like they said they would

From the USA stats it would appear most infections are in the unvaccinated. They have scientific studies: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc...ore-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Key Points

• Unvaccinated people are about 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated, according to a CDC study released Tuesday.
• The new study also found that unvaccinated people were nearly five times more likely to be infected with Covid than vaccinated people.
• The data is in line with comments from federal and state health officials, who have been saying for weeks that millions of unvaccinated Americans have been putting themselves at serious risk.

 

[dev553344]

I'll give you a sneak peak at my next avatar but don't tell anyone...

View attachment 17151

Its a pink robin... Another local that is coming out now after winter...
They're all a joy to see up close

HaHaHa reminds me of Shrek when the bird exploded:

 

[Addy]

Oh my goodness... that is the prettiest little bird...Look at that pink!!!!

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

From the USA stats it would appear most infections are in the unvaccinated. They have scientific studies:

Let me give you some friendly advice on these "scientific studies" in general. ( from one who has done them and had to testify and beat them so have seen it from both sides of the issue)

The term "scientific " is all too often used and abused by people who want to legitimize a given point and create an "appeal to authority" type influence. (not much different that polls that are designed to influence rather than measure or those who phrase a question to get a predetermined answer).

The problem is lay people don't have the time or skills to dig through these studies and the studies themselves only publish the results rather than in a peer reviewed setting where all the data is given.

Don't take these things as the "absolute truth" until they have been properly vetted by PROPER authority ( that's people with the requisite skills- not a bunch of people "voting")

The fact that there is an active effort to suppress views is cause enough to question the validity of these "studies" because facts can run around "neked" but lies need a cover. If they are all "true" as claimed- the publishers would welcome legitimate scrutiny because it would make the position even stronger- there's a reason they hide the data.(like an election audit)

 

[mailmandan]

Seattle could lose over 200 cops due to COVID vaccine mandate, report says

Seattle could lose over 200 cops due to COVID vaccine mandate, report says

 

[dev553344]

Seattle could lose over 200 cops due to COVID vaccine mandate, report says

Seattle could lose over 200 cops due to COVID vaccine mandate, report says

Yeah I saw that, I live here in Seattle area and I think most of us are sick of our government and their dictator like behaviors. The problem has been lack of good republican candidates to vote for. So they remain the tyrant they are and stay in office. We had the Seattle Chop zone recently also, and a bunch of defund the police crap forced on us from the local city officials. I looked at the city official names and none of them were english names, most her mohamad or the like. Like the voting is rigged.

 

[Cristo Rei]

Seattle could lose over 200 cops due to COVID vaccine mandate, report says

Seattle could lose over 200 cops due to COVID vaccine mandate, report says

Hey hey hey... Dan is back in town delivering the mail... LoL...
Hope your doing well my friend

 

[dev553344]

Let me give you some friendly advice on these "scientific studies" in general. ( from one who has done them and had to testify and beat them so have seen it from both sides of the issue)

The term "scientific " is all too often used and abused by people who want to legitimize a given point and create an "appeal to authority" type influence. (not much different that polls that are designed to influence rather than measure or those who phrase a question to get a predetermined answer).

The problem is lay people don't have the time or skills to dig through these studies and the studies themselves only publish the results rather than in a peer reviewed setting where all the data is given.

Don't take these things as the "absolute truth" until they have been properly vetted by PROPER authority ( that's people with the requisite skills- not a bunch of people "voting")

The fact that there is an active effort to suppress views is cause enough to question the validity of these "studies" because facts can run around "neked" but lies need a cover. If they are all "true" as claimed- the publishers would welcome legitimate scrutiny because it would make the position even stronger- there's a reason they hide the data.(like an election audit)

I'm not much for conspiracy theories. If studies didn't work then we wouldn't have our current medical system, which saves countless lives and relieves tremendous suffering every day.

 

[Josho]

From the USA stats it would appear most infections are in the unvaccinated. They have scientific studies: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc...ore-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Key Points

• Unvaccinated people are about 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with Covid-19 than those who are fully vaccinated, according to a CDC study released Tuesday.
• The new study also found that unvaccinated people were nearly five times more likely to be infected with Covid than vaccinated people.
• The data is in line with comments from federal and state health officials, who have been saying for weeks that millions of unvaccinated Americans have been putting themselves at serious risk.

Yep, look at the Southern states.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I'm not much for conspiracy theories. If studies didn't work then we wouldn't have our current medical system, which saves countless lives and relieves tremendous suffering every day.

Its not a conspiracy theory when they are in fact out to get you.

That's part of the trap. Its an appeal to "hero" fallacy. Its used by unscrupulous people trying to use the "noun" science to create a false sense of legitimacy in order to sell a political point to the unsuspecting sheeple by appealing to a "implied sense" of ethics or other technical authority.

There was a day when the sciences held themselves to a standard above the fray of politics and other agenda and strictly adhered to the proper methods and vetting by the scientific method and yes- that's what created our current medical system. That's not how it works now.

Let me ask you this and lets test whether these "studies" meet the legitimate rigorous requirements of SCIENCE or something else.

1) Is there a political or financial reward or objective attached to the results of these studies?
2) Were these studies subjected to a proper peer review and revision?
3) Is there any influence or other interest/penalty/reward on the part of the participants in the study?
4) Is all the underlying data, tests, conditions and standards also published for independent review?

Unless the answer is a true and legitimate "no" to every one of those, its not a "scientific" study to begin with.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

look at the Southern states.

No, lets look at ALL the data

 

[dev553344]

Yep, look at the Southern states.

Yeah I didn't notice that before, but the republican run states are the hot spots in general. Two maps, one for covid hot spots the other for which is dem and which is republican. But I think it is fair to say WA and CA are bad states too somewhat, but yeah the southern states are bad to the east:

Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count

 

[dev553344]

Its not a conspiracy theory when they are in fact out to get you.

That's part of the trap. Its an appeal to "hero" fallacy. Its used by unscrupulous people trying to use the "noun" science to create a false sense of legitimacy in order to sell a political point to the unsuspecting sheeple by appealing to a "implied sense" of ethics or other technical authority.

There was a day when the sciences held themselves to a standard above the fray of politics and other agenda and strictly adhered to the proper methods and vetting by the scientific method and yes- that's what created our current medical system. That's not how it works now.

Let me ask you this and lets test whether these "studies" meet the legitimate rigorous requirements of SCIENCE or something else.

1) Is there a political or financial reward or objective attached to the results of these studies?
2) Were these studies subjected to a proper peer review and revision?
3) Is there any influence or other interest/penalty/reward on the part of the participants in the study?
4) Is all the underlying data, tests, conditions and standards also published for independent review?

Unless the answer is a true and legitimate "no" to every one of those, its not a "scientific" study to begin with.

I would have to say that what you're stating is mostly speculation and non-scientific. If you have a scientific mind you stick to facts and sound reasoning. Not conjecture and speculation. The questions in your list are highly speculative and not based in fact. For instance #1 who cares if there is money behind a study, that is always the case and a scientist is going to ignore that. What you've done is doubt people and opened the door to paranoia.

 

[Josho]

Iceland... Small, remote island nation... highly vaxxed

View attachment 17087

Einstein said only a fool would keep trying the same thing and expect a different outcome

Well I have not given a proper reply to this one, but here it is now, information from a reliable source that paints the whole picture.

This is for also @An Apologetic Sheepdog

If you look past the headlines an article from Australia's RACGP (Royal Australian College of General Practitioners) has pointed out the facts when Iceland was around at its peak.

newsGP - COVID surges in one of world’s most vaccinated nations



"Conspiracy theorists have used the data to support their criticisms of the vaccines’ efficacy – pointing to the level of vaccinated people who have tested positive to the virus.

However, conspicuously absent from many of those theories – which are the subject of a debunking article by Reuters Fact Check – are references to the severity of symptoms caused by the current wave of cases.

According to the country’s Director General of the Ministry of Health Ásthildur Knútsdóttir, around 97% percent of those current infections include mild or no symptoms at all.

As previously covered by newsGP, the level of ‘breakthrough infections’ among those vaccinated is expected to rise as vaccination coverage increases. Around 77% of Iceland’s local cases are now among vaccinated individuals, Ms Knútsdóttir told Reuters.

But despite the rise in cases, there are currently only 18 hospitalised COVID cases nationwide. Demands may have increased on the country’s healthcare staff since the country opened up but the figures do not suggest the system is being overwhelmed.

 

[Josho]

Well I have not given a proper reply to this one, but here it is now, information from a reliable source that paints the whole picture.

This is for also @An Apologetic Sheepdog

If you look past the headlines an article from Australia's RACGP (Royal Australian College of General Practitioners) has pointed out the facts when Iceland was around at its peak.

newsGP - COVID surges in one of world’s most vaccinated nations



"Conspiracy theorists have used the data to support their criticisms of the vaccines’ efficacy – pointing to the level of vaccinated people who have tested positive to the virus.

However, conspicuously absent from many of those theories – which are the subject of a debunking article by Reuters Fact Check – are references to the severity of symptoms caused by the current wave of cases.

According to the country’s Director General of the Ministry of Health Ásthildur Knútsdóttir, around 97% percent of those current infections include mild or no symptoms at all.

As previously covered by newsGP, the level of ‘breakthrough infections’ among those vaccinated is expected to rise as vaccination coverage increases. Around 77% of Iceland’s local cases are now among vaccinated individuals, Ms Knútsdóttir told Reuters.

But despite the rise in cases, there are currently only 18 hospitalised COVID cases nationwide. Demands may have increased on the country’s healthcare staff since the country opened up but the figures do not suggest the system is being overwhelmed.

Now if we look back at time of this article 9th of August, this was around the peak of Iceland's 3rd wave, since then case numbers have been plummetting. Iceland has only 33 covid deaths throughout the whole pandemic pandemic, there has only been 3 deaths linked to there 3rd wave.

This proves the effectiveness in covid vaccines for protecting lives.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I would have to say that what you're stating is mostly speculation and non-scientific. If you have a scientific mind you stick to facts and sound reasoning. Not conjecture and speculation.

OK, lets test that theory. First, what is your degree field in as it applies to Science as a discipline and your legitimate qualifications as well as your experience in legitimate studies and their review?

I do this because I have put most of mine on another thread but you have directly challenged me as being unsound and unscientific. I accept your challenge but I want an idea of your LEGITIMATE "credentials" to rebuke me.

This is to make sure everything is on an even keel and its not a case of the cook rebuking the surgeon because he watched a YouTube video on carving a turkey.

The questions in your list are highly speculative and not based in fact.

Really, which one? (I gotta see this)

For instance #1 who cares if there is money behind a study, that is always the case and a scientist is going to ignore that.

This shows your total ignorance on the subject. The new word of the day is BIAS as in a participant has a VESTED INTEREST in a particular outcome. ( one of the first steps in the peer review and vetting process). That's why we "care" and depending on the extent of that vested interest- it "can" be a grounds alone for REJECTION.

 

[dev553344]

OK, lets test that theory. First, what is your degree field in as it applies to Science as a discipline and your legitimate qualifications as well as your experience in legitimate studies and their review?

I do this because I have put most of mine on another thread but you have directly challenged me as being unsound and unscientific. I accept your challenge but I want an idea of your LEGITIMATE "credentials" to rebuke me.

This is to make sure everything is on an even keel and its not a case of the cook rebuking the surgeon because he watched a YouTube video on carving a turkey.



Really, which one? (I gotta see this)



This shows your total ignorance on the subject. The new word of the day is BIAS as in a participant has a VESTED INTEREST in a particular outcome. ( one of the first steps in the peer review and vetting process). That's why we "care" and depending on the extent of that vested interest- it "can" be a grounds alone for REJECTION.

I need credentials to compete with unsound reasoning? I see what you're trying to do and it won't work. I'm not giving into paranoid delusions. Please stay on topic. I am not the topic.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I need credentials to compete with unsound reasoning? I see what you're trying to do and it won't work. I'm not giving into paranoid delusions. Please stay on topic. I am not the topic.

Ahh, that says a lot. It tells me you know you are deliberately and willfully pushing propaganda over legitimate science.

Here's how ( based on statement analysis and Reid Techniques)

A trained person would know every point I made is not only correct but literally part of every review standard that exists and wouldn't challenge it on that basis. (as you knew better than to as well) You just exposed your real agenda.

First you deflect and claim "unsound reasoning" so you don't have to answer.

Then you go ad hom ( saying my points are paranoid delusions when they aren't)

Then you try to admonish in an attempt to gain some kind of moral high ground as an exit strategy.

So, that begs the question- what agenda are you pushing? ( and why)

 

[dev553344]

Ahh, that says a lot. It tells me you know you are deliberately and willfully pushing propaganda over legitimate science.

Here's how ( based on statement analysis and Reid Techniques)

A trained person would know every point I made is not only correct but literally part of every review standard that exists and wouldn't challenge it on that basis. (as you knew better than to as well) You just exposed your real agenda.

First you deflect and claim "unsound reasoning" so you don't have to answer.

Then you go ad hom ( saying my points are paranoid delusions when they aren't)

Then you try to admonish in an attempt to gain some kind of moral high ground as an exit strategy.

So, that begs the question- what agenda are you pushing? ( and why)

OK, lets walk thru your list:

1) Is there a political or financial reward or objective attached to the results of these studies?

In order for me to consider the above point I must cast doubt on peoples credibility, which is what you tried to do to me in your last post. Calling people liars and fabricating data for money. This is highly speculative and non sound reasoning. Doubting mainstream science has always cast doubt on ones credibility. Which is where your currently at my friend.

2) Were these studies subjected to a proper peer review and revision?

It was a CDC study so I can just assume it has credibility and has had a proper scientific review process. If it hadn't it would be the subject of much debate and questioning in the scientific community.

3) Is there any influence or other interest/penalty/reward on the part of the participants in the study?

Again speculative and doubting of individuals credibility as you did me.

4) Is all the underlying data, tests, conditions and standards also published for independent review?

Not sure what your getting at. I'm not sure this is a valid point as it was a CDC study. Perhaps you should look at the quality of data statement on the CDC website: CDC - Info Quality Support - Guidelines - FAQs - Science Support - Science Quality - OSQ - OS

**note: to be honest I'm not really going to debate this topic as it would take too much of my time. And it's really not worth debating. I would put more effort into it if I thought for one second it could change your mind. But you appear to be casting doubt on everyones credibility.

 

[Josho]

So, that begs the question- what agenda are you pushing? ( and why)

Really??? I will give an answer for this question...

People like me and Devin want to protect people's parents, as I said earlier a lot of young adults would be stuffed without their parents. So we should not just let the Covid rip.

Parent lives matter...