Data shows vaccine risk outweighs benefits for those with natural immunity

a reply to: ScepticScot

Now you show where I have ever supported forced vaccination?

We're talking about the strong being made vulnerable due to an illicit emergency use authorization, even while known therapeutics are dismissed.

Get it. Got it. Good.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Glad you remember me. I don’t remember you, must not have made much of an impression

Great you admit you were wrong and the vax led to more people being hospitalized w natural immunity

Great you aren’t for forcing vaccination

Glad you agree with the op

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Can’t see your signature im on mobile

According to these cdc numbers you are wrong, as the op shows

a reply to: AaarghZombies

The cdc paper doesn’t say natural immunity

It says previous infection

So again all of the data from the op about the very low risk of having a serious case of covid if you have previous infection, and the very low benefit of for big these people to become vaccinated stand

The one size fits all policy is monstrous tyranny for all the reasons the op shows

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Glad you remember me. I don’t remember you, must not have made much of an impression

Great you admit you were wrong and the vax led to more people being hospitalized w natural immunity

Great you aren’t for forcing vaccination

Glad you agree with the op

I suspect you don't remember due to the sheer volume of times you have been shown to be wrong.

And no you haven't shown more people with Imunity were hospitalised due to the vaccines.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The data shows that as I have shown multiple times

Remember you lied ,”(oh I’m sorry you didn’t lie you were “mistaken” lol) and said natural immunity that were backed had a 30 percent reduction is hospitalization

Then I showed you were wrong, actually they were slightly more like to be hospitalized?

And you said you were mistaken?

Strange how you forgot that already

Must be “mistaken” again

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

The data shows that as I have shown multiple times

Remember you lied ,”(oh I’m sorry you didn’t lie you were “mistaken” lol) and said natural immunity that were backed had a 30 percent reduction is hospitalization

Then I showed you were wrong, actually they were slightly more like to be hospitalized?

And you said you were mistaken?

Strange how you forgot that already

Must be “mistaken” again

Only you haven't shown that the vas led to more hospitalization for previously infected. You have taken a few high level numbers ,completely ignored the limitations of the data outlined in the study and came to a conclusion you wanted that the study itself doesn't say.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I reported what the data they provided said

And it should be incumbent on those wanting to force mandates to show it would have a great effect

The data shows it does not

You saying there are limitations on this data s a strong post shift though

Back when you were (cough cough) “mistaken” you were more than happy to use this paper to make your point when you thought it showed a thirty percent reduction in hospitalizations

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

I reported what the data they provided said

And it should be incumbent on those wanting to force mandates to show it would have a great effect

The data shows it does not

You saying there are limitations on this data s a strong post shift though

Back when you were (cough cough) “mistaken” you were more than happy to use this paper to make your point when you thought it showed a thirty percent reduction in hospitalizations

Your obsession with a mistake I acknowledged shows a certain insecurity in the strength of your own arguments.

The limitations of the data are covered in the study,never mind your misapplication of the data as already covered.

The numbskulls on both local and national media are still ignoring that over 60 million Americans now have Natural Immunity and don't need to be vaccinated with the weak Covid-19 drugs.

As the mask mandates vanish, the "experts" all over the country and media keep squealing, "Get your vaccines and full boosters!"

Amazing what money does to these "professionals". No wonder the physician suicide rate is so high.

Highest of any profession says WebMD: www.webmd.com...

Flush your morals, and enable deaths, so you can make more money, and the result is exactly what we're seeing. Turning to the dark side hurts physicians extra deeply on a mental level, because they went into the profession to SAVE LIVES.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Show me any study that doesn’t acknowledge limitations on data

Show me the studies the Biden admin used to try to force those with natural immunity to vaccinate

You complain when i use the Cdc data, and the Israeli study, so show me the data you have that has no limitations

a reply to: Grambler

Personally , My Body is JUST FINE with Dealing with Invaders and I Do not Need Any Outside Help . Still Alive and Kicking the Fake Covid-19 Plandemic Can Of Corn Down the Road..........

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Show me any study that doesn’t acknowledge limitations on data

Show me the studies the Biden admin used to try to force those with natural immunity to vaccinate

You complain when i use the Cdc data, and the Israeli study, so show me the data you have that has no limitations

That's that's the point. Studies do acknowledge limitations of the data and don't use statistically insignificant differences to make unsupported claims like

vax led to more people being hospitalized w natural immunity

Or even outright wrong ones like

If you have natural immunity AND gets vaccinated, your chance slightly decreases of ever getting a covid case to .3585%.

edit on 10-2-2022 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2022 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2022 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ScepticScot

I was not wrong in what the data said

The data is not statistically insignificant

If the difference is, it proves we shouldn’t be doing mandates

The president is trying to for e people to take medication

Cities are not allowing these people to go into certain stores

Where is the data they are using?

The cdc data shows that there is no significant risk of covid for these people, and an even smaller significance on benefit from the vax for them

Your feigning ignorance and everyone can see it

But if not, show me the significant difference e on data they are using to justify mandates for bad on the previously infected

a reply to: ScepticScot

Furthermore the stupidity of your point about the data I showed not being significantly different so it not able to be used is one of the dumber at I have ever heard

Let’s say Pfizer comes out with a new drug tomorrow

The government mandates everyone take the drug to fight cancer

They test around two million ppl, half with the drug and half without

Turns out almost exactly ten percent of both groups got cancer

You say because those numbers aren’t significantly different, we can’t se this data in the decision to force people to take this drug

That would mean the government can literally for e anyone to take any drug ever, amd unless data can be provided to show it significantly causes more of the disease it is said to fight, no amount of data can act as a rebuttal

I’m addition, the statistical difference not being high is irrelevant to how likely those with previous infection are to be hospitalized which is almost no risk

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

I was not wrong in what the data said

The data is not statistically insignificant

If the difference is, it proves we shouldn’t be doing mandates

The president is trying to for e people to take medication

Cities are not allowing these people to go into certain stores

Where is the data they are using?

The cdc data shows that there is no significant risk of covid for these people, and an even smaller significance on benefit from the vax for them

Your feigning ignorance and everyone can see it

But if not, show me the significant difference e on data they are using to justify mandates for bad on the previously infected

Totally irrelevant as that wasn't the points was addressing , I even quoted your claims I was addressing so it's a fairly obvious attempt to move the goal posts.

The evidence doesn't support your claim that more people were hospitalised as a result of vaccinating thosewith previous infection.

Your numbers for the likelihood of ever getting vivid were just wrong.

Again, because you seen not to have absorbed this point, I am against general vaccine mandates for Covid. However there are many legitimate legitimate arguments that can be made without posting yet more bull# on this topic like the overwhelming majority of threads on this site.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

I was not wrong in what the data said

The data is not statistically insignificant

If the difference is, it proves we shouldn’t be doing mandates

The president is trying to for e people to take medication

Cities are not allowing these people to go into certain stores

Where is the data they are using?

The cdc data shows that there is no significant risk of covid for these people, and an even smaller significance on benefit from the vax for them

Your feigning ignorance and everyone can see it

But if not, show me the significant difference e on data they are using to justify mandates for bad on the previously infected

Totally irrelevant as that wasn't the points was addressing , I even quoted your claims I was addressing so it's a fairly obvious attempt to move the goal posts.

The evidence doesn't support your claim that more people were hospitalised as a result of vaccinating thosewith previous infection.

Your numbers for the likelihood of ever getting vivid were just wrong.

Again, because you seen not to have absorbed this point, I am against general vaccine mandates for Covid. However there are many legitimate legitimate arguments that can be made without posting yet more bull# on this topic like the overwhelming majority of threads on this site.

You just saying they are wrong is wrong

Must be another “mistake” on your part

All the numbers I presented are correct over the course of this study

Me pointing out how dumb your “not much difference” argument is isn’t moving the goal post

Around 2.5 million people with previous infection looked at in the cdc study, and when I show just how small of a chance they had of being hospitalized with covid, and how little being vaccinated changed that, you brush it off

Tiur performance on this thread speaks for itself

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

Elephant in the room time.

It's why some people get it multiple times.

which people aren't getting it multiple times?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

Elephant in the room time.

It's why some people get it multiple times.

which people aren't getting it multiple times?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

I was not wrong in what the data said

The data is not statistically insignificant

If the difference is, it proves we shouldn’t be doing mandates

The president is trying to for e people to take medication

Cities are not allowing these people to go into certain stores

Where is the data they are using?

The cdc data shows that there is no significant risk of covid for these people, and an even smaller significance on benefit from the vax for them

Your feigning ignorance and everyone can see it

But if not, show me the significant difference e on data they are using to justify mandates for bad on the previously infected

Totally irrelevant as that wasn't the points was addressing , I even quoted your claims I was addressing so it's a fairly obvious attempt to move the goal posts.

The evidence doesn't support your claim that more people were hospitalised as a result of vaccinating thosewith previous infection.

Your numbers for the likelihood of ever getting vivid were just wrong.

Again, because you seen not to have absorbed this point, I am against general vaccine mandates for Covid. However there are many legitimate legitimate arguments that can be made without posting yet more bull# on this topic like the overwhelming majority of threads on this site.

You just saying they are wrong is wrong

Must be another “mistake” on your part

All the numbers I presented are correct over the course of this study

Me pointing out how dumb your “not much difference” argument is isn’t moving the goal post

Around 2.5 million people with previous infection looked at in the cdc study, and when I show just how small of a chance they had of being hospitalized with covid, and how little being vaccinated changed that, you brush it off

Tiur performance on this thread speaks for itself

What dumb is that wasn't the argument.

And I have already explained why your numbers were wrong. It's a 2 page thread so you should be able to remember.