2 shots later 1 booster later man has very little protection from covid 19

a reply to: ScepticScot

it's cool, you don't' get it, and won't.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

it's cool, you don't' get it, and won't.

I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt that I didn't mention something that was off topic and not actually mentioned in any of the posts I replied to.

I will try to remember there are many sensitive people reading this and should try and take your feelings into account .

Hope that makes your emotional owie feel better....

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

50% effectivness is still far better than 0. 

Natural immune systems around the world are proving you wrong.

I doubt you're bright enough to understand that though...

How does natural immune systems prove 50% isn't better than 0%. Not sure you have thought that through.

It's really simple.

They used to teach it at school. I don't know wtf they taught you.

If they taught you that 50% is lower than 0% then I think it might be your education that's the issue.

Maybe that's the New Maths I keep hearing people complain about.

Maths?

I was talking about science. You know, that thing?

Only that's not what you said in 2 replies to me now.

Maybe it's reading and writing that's the issue rather than your maths?

I wasn't trying to disprove your fraudulent math.

I was saying that your fraudulent claim that the unjabbed have 0% protection from Corona Virus Disease is Bullsh!t.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

50% effectivness is still far better than 0. 

Natural immune systems around the world are proving you wrong.

I doubt you're bright enough to understand that though...

How does natural immune systems prove 50% isn't better than 0%. Not sure you have thought that through.

It's really simple.

They used to teach it at school. I don't know wtf they taught you.

If they taught you that 50% is lower than 0% then I think it might be your education that's the issue.

Maybe that's the New Maths I keep hearing people complain about.

Maths?

I was talking about science. You know, that thing?

Only that's not what you said in 2 replies to me now.

Maybe it's reading and writing that's the issue rather than your maths?

I wasn't trying to disprove your fraudulent math.

I was saying that your fraudulent claim that the unjabbed have 0% protection from Corona Virus Disease is Bullsh!t.

It would be bull if I had made such a claim.

Since I didn't however the smelly stuff is coming from your direction.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

50% effectivness is still far better than 0. 

Natural immune systems around the world are proving you wrong.

I doubt you're bright enough to understand that though...

How does natural immune systems prove 50% isn't better than 0%. Not sure you have thought that through.

It's really simple.

They used to teach it at school. I don't know wtf they taught you.

If they taught you that 50% is lower than 0% then I think it might be your education that's the issue.

Maybe that's the New Maths I keep hearing people complain about.

Maths?

I was talking about science. You know, that thing?

Only that's not what you said in 2 replies to me now.

Maybe it's reading and writing that's the issue rather than your maths?

I wasn't trying to disprove your fraudulent math.

I was saying that your fraudulent claim that the unjabbed have 0% protection from Corona Virus Disease is Bullsh!t.

It would be bull if I had made such a claim.

Since I didn't however the smelly stuff is coming from your direction.

50% effectivness is still far better than 0.  

You said that.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

50% effectivness is still far better than 0. 

Natural immune systems around the world are proving you wrong.

I doubt you're bright enough to understand that though...

How does natural immune systems prove 50% isn't better than 0%. Not sure you have thought that through.

It's really simple.

They used to teach it at school. I don't know wtf they taught you.

If they taught you that 50% is lower than 0% then I think it might be your education that's the issue.

Maybe that's the New Maths I keep hearing people complain about.

Maths?

I was talking about science. You know, that thing?

Only that's not what you said in 2 replies to me now.

Maybe it's reading and writing that's the issue rather than your maths?

I wasn't trying to disprove your fraudulent math.

I was saying that your fraudulent claim that the unjabbed have 0% protection from Corona Virus Disease is Bullsh!t.

It would be bull if I had made such a claim.

Since I didn't however the smelly stuff is coming from your direction.

50% effectivness is still far better than 0.  

You said that.

Yes I did , vaccine effectiveness.

That's not saying the unvaccinated have no protection.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So please define zero.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

So please define zero.

Winner winner
Chicken dinner

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

So please define zero.

0% vaccine effectivness would mean the vaccine has no impact on the number of cases.

50% effectiveness means halving the number of cases .

90% effectiveness against death means only a tenth as many.

If you going to voice a firm opinion that the vaccines aren't effective, then it's a good idea to at least know what the term means.

a reply to: ScepticScot

90% effectiveness against death means only a tenth as many.

As apposed to the 89% reduction when treated by an antiviral on admittance to hospital. Treat the effected not the possible infected

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: ScepticScot

90% effectiveness against death means only a tenth as many.

As apposed to the 89% reduction when treated by an antiviral on admittance to hospital. Treat the effected not the possible infected

What antivirals have been shown be 89% effective.

I would also thiink not having people get to hospital in the first place is a not insignificant gain from vaccination.

With the sheer humongous numbers of vaccine recipients, it wouldn't surprise me if a couple of people grew tails or a third eye. The millions who have now been vaccinated will serve to expose both a vaccines possible weakness and/or the hosts...this is what naturally happens in sample sizes we are dealing with...so, is it surprising that " a man twice vaccinated now has no immunity" ?...science and statistics says it would be surprising not to find this and more.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: holydarkness

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DarkestConspiracyMoon

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: holydarkness

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: holydarkness

Wait what?

Someone on immunosuppressants has s compromised immune system.

That definitely changes everything...

My wife has a severely immunosuppressive she caught it and no issues never went to the hospital

Well if you know someone who was OK that definitely means everyone else would be.

And the same # applies to the vaccine just because you or others experienced no harm from it doesn't mean everybody else had the same result. Y'all are biased though so you only apply it to covid.

No I look at what the data says.

Not personal anecdotes.

And the data says the covid 19 vaccine offers little to NO protection after 6 or 7 months

So one more time i ask how many shots are you willing to take?

50% effectivness is still far better than 0.

90% effectiveness against dying from covid is a hell of a lot better than 0.

www.reuters.com...

If booster shots are required so what?

that 90% is 90% of the already existing 98% so you're literally arguing over half a 0.5% improvement and not a overall 90% improvement. no wonder you're confused. I find it interesting with name like "sceptic" that you're falling for the whole lying with numbers game.

just like how they say that cases rose 500%!!! oh so it went from 1 case to 5? LOL

don't be fooled by %

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

So please define zero.

0% vaccine effectivness would mean the vaccine has no impact on the number of cases.

50% effectiveness means halving the number of cases .

90% effectiveness against death means only a tenth as many.

If you going to voice a firm opinion that the vaccines aren't effective, then it's a good idea to at least know what the term means.

But you're excluding an important factor:


Those numbers really aren't enticing me to take the shots that you proclaim to be safe and effective.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

So please define zero.

0% vaccine effectivness would mean the vaccine has no impact on the number of cases.

50% effectiveness means halving the number of cases .

90% effectiveness against death means only a tenth as many.

If you going to voice a firm opinion that the vaccines aren't effective, then it's a good idea to at least know what the term means.

But you're excluding an important factor:

Those numbers really aren't enticing me to take the shots that you proclaim to be safe and effective.

You could read up on what VAERs data actually is and that would reassure you.

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: holydarkness

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: DarkestConspiracyMoon

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: holydarkness

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: holydarkness

Wait what?

Someone on immunosuppressants has s compromised immune system.

That definitely changes everything...

My wife has a severely immunosuppressive she caught it and no issues never went to the hospital

Well if you know someone who was OK that definitely means everyone else would be.

And the same # applies to the vaccine just because you or others experienced no harm from it doesn't mean everybody else had the same result. Y'all are biased though so you only apply it to covid.

No I look at what the data says.

Not personal anecdotes.

And the data says the covid 19 vaccine offers little to NO protection after 6 or 7 months

So one more time i ask how many shots are you willing to take?

50% effectivness is still far better than 0.

90% effectiveness against dying from covid is a hell of a lot better than 0.

www.reuters.com...

If booster shots are required so what?

that 90% is 90% of the already existing 98% so you're literally arguing over half a 0.5% improvement and not a overall 90% improvement. no wonder you're confused. I find it interesting with name like "sceptic" that you're falling for the whole lying with numbers game.

just like how they say that cases rose 500%!!! oh so it went from 1 case to 5? LOL

don't be fooled by %

So you don't think dropping s 1 in 50 chance of death to a 1 in 500 is a significant improvement?

2% of the US population is over 6 million people. Don't be fooled by %.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

So please define zero.

0% vaccine effectivness would mean the vaccine has no impact on the number of cases.

50% effectiveness means halving the number of cases .

90% effectiveness against death means only a tenth as many.

If you going to voice a firm opinion that the vaccines aren't effective, then it's a good idea to at least know what the term means.

But you're excluding an important factor:

Those numbers really aren't enticing me to take the shots that you proclaim to be safe and effective.

You could read up on what VAERs data actually is and that would reassure you.

Can you explain why VAERs was invented.......and what it is used for please?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: ScepticScot

So please define zero.

0% vaccine effectivness would mean the vaccine has no impact on the number of cases.

50% effectiveness means halving the number of cases .

90% effectiveness against death means only a tenth as many.

If you going to voice a firm opinion that the vaccines aren't effective, then it's a good idea to at least know what the term means.

But you're excluding an important factor:

Those numbers really aren't enticing me to take the shots that you proclaim to be safe and effective.

You could read up on what VAERs data actually is and that would reassure you.

Can you explain why VAERs was invented.......and what it is used for please?

Helpfully the CDC already provide this.
Disclaimer.

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA’s multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as “safety signals.” If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same scientific limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.
VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public
[quote]

a reply to: HiddenIdentity

I am more surprised at how many in mostly western countries they were willing to surrender their rights, freedom over to vaccine drug markers with questionable record.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You could read up on what VAERs data actually is and that would reassure you.

How does it reassure me?