Science & Technology News

[Thumbs Up]

I'm taking a break but next will calculate the hospitalization/death ratios for that age group. Another thing that becomes crystal clear from these charts is that children should not be getting vaxxed. When the true rate of these vaccine injuries becomes apparent apparent it will be Nuremburg time. Myocarditis is not minor as claimed. Heart tissue does not regenerate. I am sure that there are gene therapies in the pipeline designed to help. Six month old babies will be getting vaxxed with this soon. (as per Fauci's plan) Too bad that you guys are okay with that. The trials have just been a formality. They are already ordering the doses.

[Alan Mighty]

A team of researchers in China have published a research paper (in Advanced Functional Materials) suggesting they have developed:

* a Robust Underwater Stiff Self-Healing Elastomer (RUSSE)

- which works at room temperatures, in salt water, and is robust (90% of original strength!?!); and

- might be just peachy for self-healing underwater pipes and dive gear?!?

See:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...adfm.202107538

Watch the movie (after download) at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/acti...05-MovieS4.mp4

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

A team of researchers in China have published a research paper (in Advanced Functional Materials) suggesting they have developed:

* a Robust Underwater Stiff Self-Healing Elastomer (RUSSE)

- which works at room temperatures, in salt water, and is robust (90% of original strength!?!); and

- might be just peachy for self-healing underwater pipes and dive gear?!?

See:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...adfm.202107538

Watch the movie (after download) at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/acti...05-MovieS4.mp4

They link to these other related products. Didn't look them up but love the names:

Superstretchable, Self-Healing Polymeric Elastomers with Tunable Properties

Poly(acrylic acid)–Fe3+/gelatin/poly(vinyl alcohol) triple-network supramolecular hydrogels with high toughness, high strength and self-healing properties

Healable and Recyclable Elastomers with Record-High Mechanical Robustness, Unprecedented Crack Tolerance, and Superhigh Elastic Restorability

I would like to have some of those properties. (But not enough to become a transhuman), If it came in putty form, or in a tube, I would buy some for sure.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Flat earthers are contributing to a culture of denial? You guys are the science deniers! Once again you have posted propaganda.

That you don't understand the difference in education and propaganda has been obvious since almost your first post, or at least almost the first posts I recollect.

Virtually every word you utter confirms that you have trouble making connections between word's meanings and their usage.

For example;

Originally Posted by jimbunyard (ref posts 3089 and TU 3096)

Well, we'll take that question as rhetorical, as we all know TU's the new king of unreflective accusation and ignorant assumption. OBJECTION it is never good to start a scientific discussion with a rude insult

Though the statement of an actual, verifiably objective fact may be an insult, it is rarely rude, certainly not in this and the following cases, since you continually promote dangerous disinformation.

See below.
Found 111,921 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Serious
In the first 20 cases, 18 were primarily anaphylactic based, which strongly implies a correlation none were medically investigated,malfeasance none were life threatening you are not pathologist, therefore not qualified to make these assumption. Many of the deaths are preceded by anaphylaxis but those are listed in the DEATHS search (except the one that was apparently self-reported)

'Correlation is not causation', though in these particular cases, this is irrelevant, because that is the point of making the report. Duh! Do you actually read what you post? I'm perfectly qualified to state that fact, because it's listed on the report. Or are you prepared to discount the entire claim? Though I know you're fond of cherry-picking your 'evidence', even someone as a-scientific as you shouldn't allow such shenanigans. And where is your evidence for 'malfeasance'? Are you sure it's not 'nonfeasance' you're describing? Or how about misfeasance?

Found 5,819 cases where Location is U.S. States and Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died First 20 cases, none caused by vaccine. once again, you are not a pathologist. Anaphylaxis followed by death is very common in these reports https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfi...ID19)&DIED=Yes

Again, I'm just reporting what's listed on the report.

The plausibility of these of these reports has been evaluated (independently) to be greater than 80%.
What does this even mean? The reports are 'plausible', so I guess that means they're proof that 'covid vaccine bad'? It means that even though the FDA/CDC has neglected to properly evaluate them, that professionals in the field have and conclude that they are plausible

Once again, you fail to provide any verification for who the 'professionals' are, when they performed this 'evaluation' or why their 'plausibility' matters. In case you can't understand the obvious implication, that something is plausible does not render it a fact.

Now that's 'real science' for ya!

So, what's the cure for a "zombie apocalypse"? Something about cutting off their heads, in'nit? Lame attempt at humor? What are you implying?

"Lame" or not is irrelevant; humor is in the brain of the beholder. And if you're worried about decapitation, if you'll recall, you called us realists the "zombie apocalypse" so the 'threat' is 'directed' at us zombies. Or are you feeling some guilt projection from your conspiracy fearmongering?

Oh, and by the way, the one thing that would "make my skin crawl" would be the serial display of ignorance and misunderstanding exemplified below, had I not become inured to it by it's repetition. More unwarranted and rude insults, you have yet to make a point unless that is the point in which case I object

Nope. Yet again, just statements of fact, as you make abundantly clear by your apparent inability to understand what the panel members are even saying.


I watched this start to finish once, watched in pieces twice and listened to it twice. In no place did it talk about "how to leverage the next pandemic to get the public to accept a universal messenger type RNA flu vaccine". They are inferring it throughout he entire session At about 10.5 minutes, the somewhat buffoonish moderator asked what would be necessary for a sense of urgency about the production of a universal flu vaccine to occur, in response to a statement about the lack of urgency existing in the current capitalistic mode of production, but at no time in the entire discussion did anyone suggest or imply "leverag[ing] the next pandemic they keep referring to an event, a disruption, and the next pandemic to accept a mRNA vaccine". In fact, in the entire discussion mRNA was only brought up once; the discussion was about the prospects for a universal flu vaccine, regardless of the technology used to deliver it. Other techniques were also discussed, as well as the socio-politico-economical facets and challenges. 48:26 in the video. Fauci: "when you do get a universal flu vaccine your gonna want to give it to six month old kids" after which they immediately go back to discussing MRNA technology (gene therapy)


In your mind they are "inferring it throughout he entire session". Anyone whose language comprehension wasn't corrupted by conspiratorial thinking can easily determine this. This "event", the "distruption" is not 'the' or 'a' pandemic, it was, as was stated by the moderator when he brought it up, a verbal stunt, a ploy to describe what would have to happen to bring vaccine production 'up to date' say to the current level of consumer electronics. Oddly, the case was made, somewhat jokingly, to do what you seem to genuinely want to do; the 'disruption' was to 'burn it all down'; though for them it was to start afresh; with you it seems you prefer to 'descend', Ludditicly, into pre-medical times...

Perhaps you should lay off the internet for a while, since it appears that one of it's most well know negative effects, a shortened attention span, seems to have 'reared it's ugly head'. Fauci's 'threat' to administer non-existant vaccines to six month old kids was made because, the way the body develops, immunity would make it ineffective to give the postulated vaccine to those with more mature immune systems. Again, these were non-existant, hypothetical vaccines under discussion, which any non-biased observer can easily affirm with a single viewing of the video. That you lump all mRNA vaccines under the rubric 'gene therapy' fully illustrates how little you understand about what you are making a fool of yourself over.


So once again, your personal opinion and conspiratorial mind-set cloud your judgement about a fairly informative and innocuous discussion among consumate professionals. (though about half of them seemed fairly loopy, i.e. an average representation of humanity...)Yes they do seem loopy. They seem like they have decided that a disruptive event to make people accept a new vaccination would be good for humanity
https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845...al-flu-vaccine

Many of the foreign listings are from Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J. They are required by law to post them onto VAERS. There is also a European reporting system as well as several other other countries (including Canada).


So? And?

The foreign listings were removed by OPENVAERS search, they are still accessible with MEDALERTS. Many of these were vague (intentionally?) but are still bona fide death reports. The VAERS reports don't cover all vaccine deaths worldwide, if you add deaths from different reporting systems you get staggering numbers


So? And? Yet again, you seem to think your wild, unsupported conspiratorial claims carry magical validity. They do not.

Finally we arrive at your real point, your tour de force.

Conspiracy theory.

In case you haven't realized, others in the world are aware of the crimes commited by big pharma. If anything, your misguided ire should be directed at capitalism or more accurately, the misapplication of the captialist model to corporate interests, which absolutely defines the corrupt future [and ultimate failure] of a capitalistic outlook in a finite space. You are basically admitting that there is a corporate cabal which could in itself be criticized as being a conspiracy theory

I'm not "basically admitting" anything. I'm stating outright a well-known fact. That you can't comprehend this is even more verification of how far you're ventured from the ability to understand the opinions of those around you

Please... How 'bout providing some 'initial evidence'?

I have provided enough evidence through links I have posted in this thread to cast serious doubts on the integrity of this vaccine roll out, Anthony Fauci, and the theory of natural emergence.

None that I've seen, but I don't hang on your every word.

Has it never occured to you that [the reason] no one's bothered to "prove you wrong about any of this" (though many people have pointed out your logical fallacies [to no avail]) is because you haven't provided any scientific statements? As long as you continue to use second or third hand accounts as your primary source of (mis)information, you can expect to be greeted, correctly, with a certain level of opprobrium. To expect others to grant you full accreditation when you apparently fail to meet the requirements they hold for themselves, as regards intellectual rigor at least, is, for those conversant in human nature, mind-bogglingly naive. Second and third hand accounts are the bread and butter of the fact checks you are so fond of. You struggle with basic spelling errors. It is absurd and ironic of you to accuse me as having a lack of intellectual rigor.

If you believe that "[s]econd and third hand accounts are the bread and butter of [the] fact checks", then you certainly don't have the intellectual rigor that others have. I'll let you work that one out on your own, as I did. And am still doing.

Yes. Please do. Or, once again, consider your actions before accusing others of the same, i.e. "look in the mirror". Just went back 3 pages, found zero instances of you providing primary scientific research links, as par, just wounded, paranoia-revealing rants and links to equally paranoiac websites. This shows that you have not actually looked because they are there for all to see. I provide more primary scientific research links in these threads than almost anyone else on the forum. Again, you refuse to look at the science

It is an objectve fact (pardon the redundancy) that you haven't. Obviously you're operating under a different definition of science than many, if not most. Regardless of what you think, I have a good idea of what science is and is not, and, as many others here, a more eclectic background and outlook than average.

I guess you didn't look then, the VAERS ID number is at the top of each
one.
"Reading many of them" is not science. If you want to use VAERS data as a support for your failed assumption that covid vaccines are detrimental, anecdotal 'evidence' doesn't cut it. VAERS reports are from the official FDA/CDC reporting system designed to warn of safety signals associated with vaccines, by stating this you are the one with a failed assumption

Information without context is an oxymoron.

Please provide any evidence that the "FDA/CDC hasn't admitted a single death happened from those vaccines, not a single one. Because they haven't done the required investigations!"
The following statement by the CDC, coupled with the actual VAERS reports and lack of autopsy reports, and failure to address the extreme nature of these reports (instead choosing to minmalize them) is sufficient evidence to prove malfeasance:

Mere words without verification.

FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html

The above is not "sufficient evidence to prove malfeasance", regardless of what you think it is.

In conclusion, Mr. Bunyard, I have outlined and responded to all of your allegations. Please refrain from personal attacks and insults in the future. They breed animosity and have no place in a scientific or even a civil discussion.

As before, contrary to your personal belief, this is not a 'scientific discussion'. I reserve the right to be as civil as the situation warrants.(though, considering the potential damage your fallacious opinions could cause [luckily, the 'bandwidth' is pretty narrow here], I have been extremely civil)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

That you don't understand the difference in education and propaganda has been obvious since almost your first post, or at least almost the first posts I recollect.

Virtually every word you utter confirms that you have trouble making connections between word's meanings and their usage.

For example;




Many of the foreign listings are from Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J. They are required by law to post them onto VAERS. There is also a European reporting system as well as several other other countries (including Canada).


So? And?

The foreign listings were removed by OPENVAERS search, they are still accessible with MEDALERTS. Many of these were vague (intentionally?) but are still bona fide death reports. The VAERS reports don't cover all vaccine deaths worldwide, if you add deaths from different reporting systems you get staggering numbers


So? And? Yet again, you seem to think your wild, unsupported conspiratorial claims carry magical validity. They do not.

Finally we arrive at your real point, your tour de force.

Conspiracy theory.

In case you haven't realized, others in the world are aware of the crimes commited by big pharma. If anything, your misguided ire should be directed at capitalism or more accurately, the misapplication of the captialist model to corporate interests, which absolutely defines the corrupt future [and ultimate failure] of a capitalistic outlook in a finite space. You are basically admitting that there is a corporate cabal which could in itself be criticized as being a conspiracy theory

I'm not "basically admitting" anything. I'm stating outright a well-known fact. That you can't comprehend this is even more verification of how far you're ventured from the ability to understand the opinions of those around you

Please... How 'bout providing some 'initial evidence'?

I have provided enough evidence through links I have posted in this thread to cast serious doubts on the integrity of this vaccine roll out, Anthony Fauci, and the theory of natural emergence.

None that I've seen, but I don't hang on your every word.

Has it never occured to you that [the reason] no one's bothered to "prove you wrong about any of this" (though many people have pointed out your logical fallacies [to no avail]) is because you haven't provided any scientific statements? As long as you continue to use second or third hand accounts as your primary source of (mis)information, you can expect to be greeted, correctly, with a certain level of opprobrium. To expect others to grant you full accreditation when you apparently fail to meet the requirements they hold for themselves, as regards intellectual rigor at least, is, for those conversant in human nature, mind-bogglingly naive. Second and third hand accounts are the bread and butter of the fact checks you are so fond of. You struggle with basic spelling errors. It is absurd and ironic of you to accuse me as having a lack of intellectual rigor.

If you believe that "[s]econd and third hand accounts are the bread and butter of [the] fact checks", then you certainly don't have the intellectual rigor that others have. I'll let you work that one out on your own, as I did. And am still doing.

Yes. Please do. Or, once again, consider your actions before accusing others of the same, i.e. "look in the mirror". Just went back 3 pages, found zero instances of you providing primary scientific research links, as par, just wounded, paranoia-revealing rants and links to equally paranoiac websites. This shows that you have not actually looked because they are there for all to see. I provide more primary scientific research links in these threads than almost anyone else on the forum. Again, you refuse to look at the science

It is an objectve fact (pardon the redundancy) that you haven't. Obviously you're operating under a different definition of science than many, if not most. Regardless of what you think, I have a good idea of what science is and is not, and, as many others here, a more eclectic background and outlook than average.

I guess you didn't look then, the VAERS ID number is at the top of each
one.
"Reading many of them" is not science. If you want to use VAERS data as a support for your failed assumption that covid vaccines are detrimental, anecdotal 'evidence' doesn't cut it. VAERS reports are from the official FDA/CDC reporting system designed to warn of safety signals associated with vaccines, by stating this you are the one with a failed assumption

Information without context is an oxymoron.

Please provide any evidence that the "FDA/CDC hasn't admitted a single death happened from those vaccines, not a single one. Because they haven't done the required investigations!"
The following statement by the CDC, coupled with the actual VAERS reports and lack of autopsy reports, and failure to address the extreme nature of these reports (instead choosing to minmalize them) is sufficient evidence to prove malfeasance:

Mere words without verification.



The above is not "sufficient evidence to prove malfeasance", regardless of what you think it is.

In conclusion, Mr. Bunyard, I have outlined and responded to all of your allegations. Please refrain from personal attacks and insults in the future. They breed animosity and have no place in a scientific or even a civil discussion.

As before, contrary to your personal belief, this is not a 'scientific discussion'. I reserve the right to be as civil as the situation warrants.(though, considering the potential damage your fallacious opinions could cause [luckily, the 'bandwidth' is pretty narrow here], I have been extremely civil)

Love the colors but next time please some green would be nice.

[Thumbs Up]

Forget all that. It is all written in these threads who said and posted what. No need to argue about it. Sometimes people need to vent, Haters need someone to hate on. I hope that this doesn't make it worse for you, Jim (what I am showing here). No hard feelings okay brah?

I am crunching numbers on the UK data and the true ratios are shocking. When you convert into rates per 100,000 (vaxxed or unvaxxed) it pads the results. The two sides of my brain have been fighting about this all day but my right brain finally won and I did some simple arithmetic and converted to ratios.
Here are the figures from week 39: https://assets.publishing.service.go...rt-week-41.pdf

Cases 4:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Hospitalizations 1.9:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Deaths 3.5:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

These are the actual unpadded numbers. I also did week 41 and came up with similar ratios.

The reason that those rate per 100,000 ratios are bunk is because no matter what others may do, a person makes their choices then takes their chances. Although those decisions may classify them as a minority, that wouldn't really affect their true odds. It wouldn't affect the outcome. At least not for something like this.

To come up with these numbers I compare the total unvaxxed adult rates to the total vaxxed adult rates (I included the post 21 day single dosers with the 2 dosers), I omitted the unlinked and early one dose vaxxed from the equations and excluded the under 18s. The numbers for week 39 are below.

Cases: 75,925 unvaxxed, 310,604 vaxxed

Hospitalizations: 2435 unvaxxed, 4676 vaxxed

Deaths: 815 unvaxxed, 2,913 vaxxed

These are the actual numbers from Public Health England, which is now called UK Health Security Agency.

You guys can rant and rave all you want but these are the true figures. I know. It's shocking. Definitely a pandemic of the vaccinated (at least in the UK) but I have a feeling that we have similar ratios.

It has been said that if you want to tell a lie, statistics are the way to do it. Those cases per 100,000 ratios are a statistical fallacy. They don't affect a persons individual odds. That is how I see it. It makes perfect sense. I would have thought that anyone would agree, apparently some don't but is crystal clear to me. No need to complicate the equation, those are the true numbers even though you will be told they are misleading it is very clear they are not.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Forget all that. It is all written in these threads who said and posted what. No need to argue about it. Sometimes people need to vent, Haters need someone to hate on. I hope that this doesn't make it worse for you, Jim (what I am showing here). No hard feelings okay brah?

I am crunching numbers on the UK data and the true ratios are shocking. When you convert into rates per 100,000 (vaxxed or unvaxxed) it pads the results. The two sides of my brain have been fighting about this all day but my right brain finally won and I did some simple arithmetic and converted to ratios.
Here are the figures from week 39: https://assets.publishing.service.go...rt-week-41.pdf

Cases 4:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Hospitalizations 1.9:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Deaths 3.5:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

These are the actual unpadded numbers. I also did week 41 and came up with similar ratios.

The reason that those rate per 100,000 ratios are bunk is because no matter what others may do, a person makes their choices then takes their chances. Although those decisions may classify them as a minority, that wouldn't really affect their true odds. It wouldn't affect the outcome. At least not for something like this.

To come up with these numbers I compare the total unvaxxed adult rates to the total vaxxed adult rates (I included the post 21 day single dosers with the 2 dosers), I omitted the unlinked and early one dose vaxxed from the equations and excluded the under 18s. The numbers for week 39 are below.

Cases: 75,925 unvaxxed, 310,604 vaxxed

Hospitalizations: 2435 unvaxxed, 4676 vaxxed

Deaths: 815 unvaxxed, 2,913 vaxxed

These are the actual numbers from Public Health England, which is now called UK Health Security Agency.

You guys can rant and rave all you want but these are the true figures. I know. It's shocking. Definitely a pandemic of the vaccinated (at least in the UK) but I have a feeling that we have similar ratios.

It has been said that if you want to tell a lie, statistics are the way to do it. Those cases per 100,000 ratios are a statistical fallacy. They don't affect a persons individual odds. That is how I see it. It makes perfect sense. I would have thought that anyone would agree, apparently some don't but is crystal clear to me. No need to complicate the equation, those are the true numbers even though you will be told they are misleading it is very clear they are not.

LIES DAMN LIES , AND STATISTICS.

Now here is the paperwork that Britts had to acknowledge and sign in front of a health care provider . Yes a screen grab of it .

Yes deemed a hoax by Reuters. But is it really one?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Love the colors but next time please some green would be nice.

I'd have appreciated a colour code key, so I didn't have to assume who was whom.

[GordMay]

“Why easing COVID restrictions could prompt a fierce flu rebound" ~ by Nicola Jones
As pandemic restrictions ease, other respiratory viruses are returning in unexpected ways.
More ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02558-8

Health practices, taken up to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, are continuing to have unusual and unexpected effects, on a number of respiratory diseases.
Some illnesses have been quashed, others have ploughed through, and still more are rebounding, off-season.
Researchers warn that we might see a rebound effect, as restrictions are lifted, and influenza spreads through previously uninfected people — so get your flu shot, if you can.


See also:

“mRNA flu shots move into trials” ~ by Elie Dolgin
COVID-19 provided an opportunity to show that messenger-RNA [mRNA] vaccines can work. Now, drug companies are racing to apply the technology platform for influenza. But, making mRNA vaccines against the flu might be more challenging, than crafting ones against COVID-19.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-021-00176-7

[GordMay]

The puzzle of COVID super-immunity

People who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response, after being vaccinated, than do those who have never been infected.

As the world watches out for new coronavirus variants, the basis of such ‘super-immunity’ has become one of the pandemic’s great mysteries.
Researchers hope that, by mapping the differences between the immune protection, that comes from infection, compared with that from vaccination, they can chart a safer path to this higher level of protection.

“COVID super-immunity: one of the pandemic’s great puzzles” ~ by Ewen Callaway
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I'd have appreciated a colour code key, so I didn't have to assume who was whom.

Sorry about that, after I thought about it the 'editability' had elapsed.

The original, post 3081, was addressed to LE, from TU.

My post, listed verbatim, with my comments added in dark red and underlined, was post 3089.

TU's rebuttal post to 3089 is 3096, and, perhaps typically, is a mish-mash of confusion, where he inserted red comments willy-nilly throughout my comments, resulting in a difficult-to-properly-rebut post.

Though I didn't do the best I could, I hoped anyone reading it could muddle through based on the context, admittedly not the best approach.

As for a key, some of both TU's and my comments are in black, some of my previous comments are in dark red and underlinedwith possible bolding and italics. All of my new comments are in blue and underlined.


All of TU's comments are either black or red.

Didn't think many really read these tirades, so I'm a bit surprised.


Unless of course, you're making another point, as in reference to LE's tiger and donkey parable...though perhaps you'd change the protaganists to two donkeys... (trying here not to plagarize the Thumbs Upian assumptive m.o.)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

I am crunching numbers on the UK data and the true ratios are shocking. When you convert into rates per 100,000 (vaxxed or unvaxxed) it pads the results. The two sides of my brain have been fighting about this all day but my right brain finally won and I did some simple arithmetic and converted to ratios.
Here are the figures from week 39: https://assets.publishing.service.go...rt-week-41.pdf

Cases 4:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Hospitalizations 1.9:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Deaths 3.5:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

These are the actual unpadded numbers.

Let's start with their own conclusions:

In total, around 261,500 hospitalisations have been prevented in those aged 45 years and over up to 19 September 2021.
UKHSA and University of Cambridge MRC Biostatistics Unit previously reported on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality. Estimates suggest that 127,500 deaths and 24,144,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID 19 vaccination programme, up to 24 September.

Are the vaccinated who present to hospital "sicker" than those who are unvaccinated? Maybe? But there are many possible explanations besides vaccination for that.

The rate per population is the real story. Vaccination works. Why do you deny this?

[Lake-Effect]

Misconceptions about science fuel pandemic debates and controversies, says Neil deGrasse Tyson

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says some of the bitter arguments about medicine and science during the COVID-19 pandemic can be blamed on a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

"People were unwittingly witnessing science at its very best.… [They said,] 'You told me not to wear a mask a month ago and now you tell me [to] wear it.… You don't know what you're talking about.' Yes, we do," the American astrophysicist and author told The Sunday Magazine host Piya Chattopadhyay.

"Science is a means of querying nature. And when we have enough experiments and enough observations, only then can we say: This is how nature behaves, whether you like it or not. And that is when science contributes to what is objectively true in the world."

bolding mine


And yes there's room for reflection on both sides of the hot-button topics.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Let's start with their own conclusions:

In total, around 261,500 hospitalisations have been prevented in those aged 45 years and over up to 19 September 2021.
This model does not account for the indirect effects of the vaccination programme and this
model is therefore becoming less able to accurately estimate the true numbers of
hospitalisations averted with certainty. Therefore this will be the final update to this model and it
will be removed from this report going forward
in those aged 45 years and over up to 19 September 2021.
UKHSA and University of Cambridge MRC Biostatistics Unit previously reported on the direct and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality. Estimates suggest that 127,500 deaths and 24,144,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID 19 vaccination programme, up to 24 September. Neither of these models will be updated going forward. This is due to these models being
unable to account for the interventions that would have been implemented in the absence of
vaccination. Consequently, over time the state of the actual pandemic and the no-vaccination
pandemic scenario have become increasingly less comparable. For further context surrounding
this figure and for previous estimates, please see previous vaccine surveillance reports.

Are the vaccinated who present to hospital "sicker" than those who are unvaccinated? Maybe? But there are many possible explanations besides vaccination for that.

The rate per population is the real story. Vaccination works. Why do you deny this?

You are pushing a notion that the truth can be affected by how many times a mistruth or incomplete misleading truths are repeated. For the public mind (groupthink), this may be true. The above quotes from the report are missing context (the rest of the quote). These quotes had disclaimers (which I added in red). " The rate per population is the real story" is exactly what I have asserted and provided the numbers of and the ratios for. The true unpadded numbers of infections, hospitalizations, and fatalities.

Cases- 4:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Hospitalizations- 1.9:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

Deaths- 3.5:1 vaxxed to unvaxxed

What I think you meant to say was that rates among the vaccinated group vs rates among the unvaccinated group tell the real story. I don't think this is true, I believe it is what is referred to as a statistical fallacy.

Common Statistical Fallacies and Paradoxes
https://www.realclearscience.com/art...es_110241.html

The reasoning is simple common sense. Once you made that choice (vax or no vax), at that point your fate is sealed (so to speak) regardless of how many people chose otherwise. You become a statistic (die), or you survive. The actual ratio of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed deaths is 3.5:1. Just because you choose the less popular group doesn't change the fact that less of them have died. Saying otherwise is a statistical trick, kind of like an optical illusion. It is possible on paper but not in real life. Sure, one can go back and say we have to adjust those numbers to see what it would have looked like if there were the same number of vaxxed vs unvaxxed, but there were not. The real facts on the ground numbers show that there were 3.5 times more deaths in the population that decided to get the vax.


Do you see the face or the vase in this image? - BrandStory
Admittedly, there are those optical illusions that can be viewed one of two ways but not both simultaneously. (the image can appear to flip before your eyes, but certain people can only see one or the other) Both views are equally valid. This may be the case. As this analogy relates to the topic might be described by the Orwellian term Doublethink.

Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one's own memories or sense of reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

The blanket statement, vaccination works (while good for your quota), gets the idea across that vaccination is a good thing and it would be bad to criticize it. Perhaps we need to revisit the definition of a vaccine.

a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

As we can see from the definition, if a substance does not provide immunity then it is not a vaccine. As we can see from the case numbers (actual and adjusted) this is not the case. As we have seen from observational studies of bona fide outbreaks this is not the case. (the vaccinated were highly susceptible to the infection and readily spread it to others).
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/con...#html_fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...mm7031e2-H.pdf
With the vaccinated dying at a rate 3.5 times higher than the unvaccinated can we really call it a vaccine? The statement: Vaccination Works is always true because of the definition of a vaccine. If it didn't work, it would be because you are not using a true vaccine. If a vaccine is failing, it can no longer be considered a vaccine.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Sorry about that, after I thought about it the 'editability' had elapsed.

The original, post 3081, was addressed to LE, from TU.

My post, listed verbatim, with my comments added in dark red and underlined, was post 3089.

TU's rebuttal post to 3089 is 3096, and, perhaps typically, is a mish-mash of confusion, where he inserted red comments willy-nilly throughout my comments, resulting in a difficult-to-properly-rebut post.

Though I didn't do the best I could, I hoped anyone reading it could muddle through based on the context, admittedly not the best approach.
That is called annotating!
As for a key, some of both TU's and my comments are in black, some of my previous comments are in dark red and underlinedwith possible bolding and italics. All of my new comments are in blue and underlined.


All of TU's comments are either black or red.

Didn't think many really read these tirades, so I'm a bit surprised.


Unless of course, you're making another point, as in reference to LE's tiger and donkey parable...though perhaps you'd change the protaganists to two donkeys... (trying here not to plagarize the Thumbs Upian assumptive m.o.)

Annotation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annotation