Data shows vaccine risk outweighs benefits for those with natural immunity

a reply to: ScepticScot

You’ve done no such thing

You admitted you “made a mistake”

You claimed the numbers are only over the course of the study, which is true of any study ever done.

You said the study has limitations, which is true of every study ever

Then you muddled on about not a big difference in the numbers, which as I explained to you is stupid

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

You’ve done no such thing

You admitted you “made a mistake”

You claimed the numbers are only over the course of the study, which is true of any study ever done.

You said the study has limitations, which is true of every study ever

Then you muddled on about not a big difference in the numbers, which as I explained to you is stupid

Your memory seems as bad as your manners.

You claimed a % chance of ever catching covid that was wrong.

You claimed that the data showed vaccinating the previously infected increase hospitalization which it doesn't.

You quoted both these posts in one of your replies but insist on pretending I was talking about something else.

a reply to: Grambler

Let's throw some numbers in here:

Chances of dying from covid after being vaxxed 0.05%
Chances of dying form the vax 0.0018%

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Grambler

Let's throw some numbers in here:

Chances of dying from covid after being vaxxed 0.05%
Chances of dying form the vax 0.0018%

Where does the .0018% come from?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

You’ve done no such thing

You admitted you “made a mistake”

You claimed the numbers are only over the course of the study, which is true of any study ever done.

You said the study has limitations, which is true of every study ever

Then you muddled on about not a big difference in the numbers, which as I explained to you is stupid

Your memory seems as bad as your manners.

You claimed a % chance of ever catching covid that was wrong.

You claimed that the data showed vaccinating the previously infected increase hospitalization which it doesn't.

You quoted both these posts in one of your replies but insist on pretending I was talking about something else.

One: yes all studies are always over the course of the study, so that was implied

2 yes the numbers show vaccinating the previous infected slightly up their chance of hospitalization as I showed you several times

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

You’ve done no such thing

You admitted you “made a mistake”

You claimed the numbers are only over the course of the study, which is true of any study ever done.

You said the study has limitations, which is true of every study ever

Then you muddled on about not a big difference in the numbers, which as I explained to you is stupid

Your memory seems as bad as your manners.

You claimed a % chance of ever catching covid that was wrong.

You claimed that the data showed vaccinating the previously infected increase hospitalization which it doesn't.

You quoted both these posts in one of your replies but insist on pretending I was talking about something else.

One: yes all studies are always over the course of the study, so that was implied

2 yes the numbers show vaccinating the previous infected slightly up their chance of hospitalization as I showed you several times

You said 'ever' twice, that certainly isn't implying over the time of the study. Maybe you were just mistaken twice.

You also said this

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

The difference in the studies was insignificant it doesn't support that claim.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying ever was implied ever over the course of the study

And secondly although insignificant the numbers did show vaccinations on previous infected slightly increased chances to be hospitalized

This data clearly shows forcing these vaccinations is unwarranted and causes more harm

You chose to ignore

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying ever was implied ever over the course of the study

And secondly although insignificant the numbers did show vaccinations on previous infected slightly increased chances to be hospitalized

This data clearly shows forcing these vaccinations is unwarranted and causes more harm

You chose to ignore

In what version of English does 'ever' mean over the course of the study?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying ever was implied ever over the course of the study

And secondly although insignificant the numbers did show vaccinations on previous infected slightly increased chances to be hospitalized

This data clearly shows forcing these vaccinations is unwarranted and causes more harm

You chose to ignore

In what version of English does 'ever' mean over the course of the study?

When every person understands every study is also inherently over the course of the study

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying ever was implied ever over the course of the study

And secondly although insignificant the numbers did show vaccinations on previous infected slightly increased chances to be hospitalized

This data clearly shows forcing these vaccinations is unwarranted and causes more harm

You chose to ignore

In what version of English does 'ever' mean over the course of the study?

When every person understands every study is also inherently over the course of the study

You said of ever catching covid (twice). The meaning of that is very clear.

Pity you haven't learned your lesson about just admitting your very obvious mistakes.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Lol my mistakes

Using the word ever I instead of saying “ever over the course of this study period”

Ok your right I’ll own it. The latter would have been more precise

Now I could have made your “mistake” of saying the opposite of what the data says, that hospitalization with the previous infected that are vaccinated dropped thirty percent when actually it is slightly increase

The fact is it’s obvious what you are doing

You can’t argue against the data from the op showing that vaccinations for the previous infected is not helpful against covid hospitalization and causes more harm, and so you object by lying, I mean making a mistake, criticizing the word ever, saying things like there are limitations and making some nonsense argument about differences having to be big for data to count

It’s a sad attempt at derailment

The question is why would you do this

I know the answer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Lol my mistakes

Using the word ever again matelas of saving “ever since bed the course of this study period”

Ok your right I’ll own it. The latter would have been more precise

Nlnowbi could have made your “mistake” of saying the opposite of what the data says that hospitalization with the previous infected that are vaccinated dropped thirty percent when actually is slightly increase

The fact is it’s obvious what you are doing

You can’t argue against the data from the op showing that vaccinations for the previous infected is not helpful against covid hospitalization and causes more harm, and so you object by lying, I mean making a mistake, criticizing the word ever, saying things like there are limitations and making some nonsense argument about differences having to be big for data to count

It’s a sad attempt at derailment

The question is why would you do this

I know the answer

What answer is that?

originally posted by: Madviking
Agreed, if this was solely about reaching herd immunity and protecting individuals from severe covid, it would only focus on those individuals who have neither recovered from covid or been vaccinated.

Moreover, they would cease the mandates once herd immunity was reached. In Ottawa I think they originally stated the mandate would cease at 70% or so, which is a reasonable herd immunity target. However, they moved the goal post to 90%.

Until 2020, the WHO definition of herd immunity stated it was the combination of naturally acquired immunity and vaccinated immunity, not the latter. They changed it in 2020...

originally posted by: teapot
Thanks for all the work you have put into this Grambler.

It is this, as you say, immoral and authoritarian approach, to try and force the naturally immune to take the shots that is the biggest indicator there is something seriously amiss with the whole covid thing. And absolute proof what a lying bunch of puppets all our governments and their moronic henchmen are.

this is making people products and bringing them under the spell of satan nuber of the beast on our forehead is not far away

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Grambler

Let's throw some numbers in here:

Chances of dying from covid after being vaxxed 0.05%
Chances of dying form the vax 0.0018%

Where does the .0018% come from?

Math

Simply take the number of people globally who've had at least one vax (I'm only counting the western mRNA vax here, not the killed virus types from China or Russia), and the number of people killed by the vax according to VAERS and its overseas equivalents, throw them on a blender together. Add a pinch of your own personal bias, and bake on a medium heat until people get salty. And you've got the chance of dying from the vax.

Or you can just ask an actuary because this is literally the kind of thing that they do all day.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying ever was implied ever over the course of the study

And secondly although insignificant the numbers did show vaccinations on previous infected slightly increased chances to be hospitalized

This data clearly shows forcing these vaccinations is unwarranted and causes more harm

You chose to ignore

In what version of English does 'ever' mean over the course of the study?

When every person understands every study is also inherently over the course of the study

You said of ever catching covid (twice). The meaning of that is very clear.

Pity you haven't learned your lesson about just admitting your very obvious mistakes.

You're literally arguing over phraseology when you should be arguing over the data or the conclusions.

Enough already.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Grambler

Let's throw some numbers in here:

Chances of dying from covid after being vaxxed 0.05%
Chances of dying form the vax 0.0018%

Where does the .0018% come from?

Math

Simply take the number of people globally who've had at least one vax (I'm only counting the western mRNA vax here, not the killed virus types from China or Russia), and the number of people killed by the vax according to VAERS and its overseas equivalents, throw them on a blender together. Add a pinch of your own personal bias, and bake on a medium heat until people get salty. And you've got the chance of dying from the vax.

Or you can just ask an actuary because this is literally the kind of thing that they do all day.

VAERs doesn't tell you the number of people killed by the vaccines (it specifically tells you it doesn't on it's data disclaimer).

If you use Scotland as example there have been a grand total of 6 people who.have the vaccine listed on the death certificate ( as of mid December) which given the number of people vaccinated means you would require another zero after the decimal place.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Saying ever was implied ever over the course of the study

And secondly although insignificant the numbers did show vaccinations on previous infected slightly increased chances to be hospitalized

This data clearly shows forcing these vaccinations is unwarranted and causes more harm

You chose to ignore

In what version of English does 'ever' mean over the course of the study?

When every person understands every study is also inherently over the course of the study

You said of ever catching covid (twice). The meaning of that is very clear.

Pity you haven't learned your lesson about just admitting your very obvious mistakes.

You're literally arguing over phraseology when you should be arguing over the data or the conclusions.

Enough already.

On the contrary I think it's an entirely deliberate effort from Grambler to mislead people about how lethal the virus is.

originally posted by: Grambler
Table one on page 3 shows a comparison in California and New York of 4 groups, among them those with natural immunity and those with natural immunity plus vaccine.

Starting with California, when it comes it all cases (which could be asymptomatic and upward)

Vaccinated w/ Previous COVID-19 diagnosis 968,167 amount of ppl they looked at/ 3,471 amount of cases
Unvaccinated w/ Previous COVID-19 diagnosis 1,370,782 amount of ppl they looked at/ 6,805 amount of cases

In other words, if you have natural immunity and are unvaccinated, there were only 6805 total cases which could be asymptomatic or more, out of over 1.3 million. That puts your chance of ever getting covid, even an asymptomatic case, if you are unvaccinated with natural immunity at .4964%.

Just a quick note to this point:

All of those people (968K vaxed and 1.3M unvaxed) already had COVID, so you're diving into the odds of re-infection, not the "chance of ever getting covid." You should have said "chance of getting re-infected with COVID." Same point for your analysis of the NY data. And obviously none of this data includes Omicron, because Omicron re-infects everyone.

edit - I just read page 3 of this thread and realized that you've already acknowledged this misleading statement - sorry for being redundant