Stupid shit in Medellin

[QUOTE=Nounce;2660654]Why?

Why do you worry about corrupted data? You cam define your own parameters for your solution.[/QUOTE]I am sorry but this is getting to be too much like work. I want to keep my vibe going of why I am here in the first place. I fully retired in 2019. You ask reasonably intelligent questions, that I will be happy to answer if you pay my consultant fee. For you, $50 K. That's half-off. Jajajajajajaaaa. I am sorry to give you the kiss-off. Ostee Out and let's Keep On Keepin' On.

[QUOTE=Nordico;2659985]I'm sure you meant to say 0.09% of the Canadian population has died from Covid.[/QUOTE]It's certainly possible I misplaced a decimal point.

[QUOTE]Please explain. The statistics I'm reading say that the US has made 2.73, Pakistan 0.11 and Indonesia 0.27 tests per capita.[/QUOTE]The numbers I quoted are the percentage of tests given which are positive, not the percentage of the population. I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at.

[QUOTE=Trinimoses;2659674]Man 100% fact. I don't know how people at this stage will tell people that vaccines don't offer 100% protection from getting the disease its made for. Then why call it a vaccine if its not going to do that. But nah. Common sense is lacking in this world yes.[/QUOTE]Vaccines don't offer 100% protection against getting a disease. It would be great if they did, but they don't.

Here's Smallpox vaccine. It's 95% effective. [URL]https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/7022/[/URL].

This next link has a bunch of vaccines listed.

Polio -90% effective with 2 doses, 99% effective with 4 doses.

Chickenpox -90% effective.

HIB -93%.

HPV -90%.

Measles 94%.

Meningoccocal- doesn't provide 100%.

Mumps -88%.

Pneumcocca -75% effective or more.

[URL]https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hepb/index.html[/URL]

The vaccines don't need to be perfect. They only have reduce the number of people who can pass the disease. If the disease can't find someone new to affect.

[QUOTE=Trinimoses;2660107]For starters. Lets go with the chickpox vaccine and the polio vaccine. In my country of a population of 1.4 million. At least 300 k chickpox vac and almost the same amount of polio vacc have been given in the last 10+ years. With ZERO infections happening with the people who got the vacc. Now come with the different covid vacc. We got 3 brands here. On the daily health briefing. The number of full vaxxed people that are getting covid is rising. . . . and this is not only here. Look at Israel and other highly vaxxed countries // where over 90% of the population is vaxxed. And they having some really crazy outbreaks of covid. That alone tells you the vaccines are not working.[/QUOTE]Let's start with the chickenpox vaccine. It's not 100% effective at preventing infection. However, 100% people don't get exposed to chickenpox. If enough of the population is vaccinated, cases start to drop, because the disease. The same is true with polio.

With Covid the big problem is that it's highly mutable, like the flu. While the vaccines provide some protection against variants. Why would it be 100% effective against a new variant?

Since you brought up Israel, 90% of deaths and serious illness are unvaccinated. Can you give me a quick primer on how a vaccine is supposed to work if a person doesn't take it.

[QUOTE=Osteoknot;2660340]I will name two, smallpox and within our lifetimes, polio. For polio, the success will be due largely in part to the efforts of one of those service clubs we have here in America, for which one of my superstar sister's was president.

As always, you have to define your terms. I am defining 100% effective at clinically eradicating the disease off the face of the earth. There will always be smallpox and polio infectious cultures in government labs somewhere.

That was the answer to one of my many topic points in my earlier post about "things you need to know to have an intelligent conversation about Covid".

I am certain you knew the answer already, and were just baiting the readership with your question, right? Jeje.

Carry on as I know you will. Does that rise to the level of a future prediction? Nah, any idiot can see that coming.[/QUOTE]Individually, neither is 100% effective. However, the cumulative dosing to almost the entire population makes up for the few which the vaccine didn't work on.

For Polio it was pretty easy. The disease can only be spread through fecal material and a person is only infectious for 1-2 weeks. Also polio virus is only found humans. No animals are known to carry it. This is beneficial.

[QUOTE=Osteoknot;2658314]I get it, you imply it is the opposite of Spirit, Aruba, etc, but it sounds like there may be more to it?[/QUOTE]Legacy airline. Delta, American, United, Alaska, and Hawaiian are the US legacy airlines still in operation. I fly for one of those.

[QUOTE=Nounce;2660654]Why?

Why do you worry about corrupted data? You can define your own parameters for your solution.[/QUOTE]After this answer, it will cost you, LOL, as I believe I alluded to in my last post on this topic in the middle of last night, not sure exactly what I wrote until I see it, lolam.

I am not worried, but you made a factual statement. One of those parameters would be, "Ignore the data".

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You are one of the 3 or 4 posters here who would be able to understand and comprehend The Truth of what is going on. JuJuBee is another one. Maybe a couple of other random posters who I forget. I try not to associate too many Usernames with specific posts, in order to keep the content of the posts in my head without prejudicing myself against or for specific Users. Obviously, sometimes that is impossible to accomplish because I see the names next to the post and cannot always force myself to forget. Plus a lot of guys have an obvious style of writing.

[QUOTE=Nounce;2660654]
Why do you worry about corrupted data? You cam define your own parameters for your solution.[/QUOTE]I would like to know in what sense he means corrupted.

A invented stat that Osteo posted got me thinking, if it were indeed true that 80-90% of deaths were of old people that would have died in the next coupla years. Which given the average age and prevalence of comorbidities, might not be wildly off the mark. How would you respond to this. Hyperthetical:

If we had known beforehand that this was the case, would you still mandate to lock everyone up, close the economy, and fire the non-vaxd, or would a more targetted protection policy be appropriate?

[QUOTE=JustTK;2660808]A invented stat that Osteo posted got me thinking, if it were indeed true that 80-90% of deaths were of old people that would have died in the next coupla years. Which given the average age and prevalence of comorbidities, might not be wildly off the mark. How would you respond to this. Hyperthetical:

If we had known beforehand that this was the case, would you still mandate to lock everyone up, close the economy, and fire the non-vaxd, or would a more targetted protection policy be appropriate?[/QUOTE]Calling me out by name after I told you I would not engage you on the topic. That's just the kind of trick I would expect from a ghost like you. I will take pity on your intellectual feableness and nurge you in the right direction. . . . One. . . Last. . . Time.

I did not "invent" that stat.

Both of your proposed choices are wrong.

If you had been paying attention to my posts, then you would know the answer, which is, "do nothing. " However, that answer is now moot, and was not realistic at the time because it would have taken medical and political willpower that did not and still does not exist to implement.

That part of the solution is theory and not fact, but because of the source, me, that theory happens to be correct. Geez. You will need to study this answer a bit, well everyone here would, in order to properly understand it.

And puhleeez tell me, that you did not actually intend to write "hyperthetical"? JFC, don't answer, it's a "hypothetical" question, jajajajajajajaaaaaaaaaa.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2660808]A invented stat that Osteo posted got me thinking, if it were indeed true that 80-90% of deaths were of old people that would have died in the next coupla years. Which given the average age and prevalence of comorbidities, might not be wildly off the mark. How would you respond to this. Hyperthetical:

If we had known beforehand that this was the case, would you still mandate to lock everyone up, close the economy, and fire the non-vaxd, or would a more targetted protection policy be appropriate?[/QUOTE]Your hypothetical is close to what the governor of Florida has done. Initially, he went with the lockdowns. He has admitted that was a mistake. He targeted the elderly and those with comorbidities with prevention and treatment. Florida has the second highest percentage of residents 65+. Only Maine is higher, but Maine has 6% of the total population of Florida. Everything is almost back to pre-pandemic standards now. Stores, restaurants, and bars are fully open. Masks are still required in most health facilities, but not most other places. And Florida hasn't suffered a major outbreak of Covid as predicted by many.

[QUOTE=Osteoknot;2660819]Calling me out by name.
I did not "invent" that stat.
Both of your proposed choices are wrong.
[/QUOTE]Calling you out by name? I just used the name that you use on your profile. Nothing secret there. No dirtty tricks.

You clearly did invent the stat. How could anyone stare in to a crystal ball and declare with certainty that 80-90% of the deaths would have died anyway within the next 2 years. At best its an estimate, not a stat.

"proposed choices" - I didn't make any proposed choices. I put forward a hypothetical for people to think about.

Osteo, sometimes chatting with you is like talking to a drunkard in a club. I say smthg, then you say smthg back that is not even related to what I said. You been taking lessons from JPaedo?

[QUOTE=FunLuvr;2660850]Your hypothetical is close to what the governor of Florida has done.[/QUOTE]I have no great knowledge of the COVID events in Florida. I do remember seeing it on the news as an example to support both sides of the argument, so there must have been a time when things were working well and working bad.

But if it is a successful example of how to apply targetted protection, then I will take a closer look. What I find amazing is that it flies in the face of those states that are still advocating even for children to get vaxd. It seems that the conservatives are slowly waking up to reality now. I see David Pakman is now changing his position post omicron. Sam Harris is now taking an anti-mandate psoition despite having public spats and falling out with some of his best science friends. As per usual, mostly authoritarian governments are the last to wake up. Plus a few obstinate folk that refuse to accept they are on the wrong side of the fence.

BTW - My hypothetical option of targetted protection is what the Barrington Declaration was about, many many months ago. Those people were removed from social media by our authorities. Yet I still think they were correct.

[QUOTE=Osteoknot]I doubt it would bother you anywho, but that's my choice. I am afraid my friend, you fall under the "Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs" category as virtually all anti-vaxers do. For one thing, the Covid virus IS different than any other epidemic, as is the way we handled it, because of the Internet. It is the all time KlusterFuk for vaccination and population health intervention. This is the [b]Purrfekt[/b] Storm for what went wrong and if this wasn't such a pansy virus, it would have been the end of mankind. That's another one of yours and other antivax argument failures. Because the virus is not deadly enough, more people take the risk and make the (wrong) choice not to be vaccinated.

If it's any consolation, YOU WERE RIGHT in the beginning. We should not have tried a vaccine at first. But not for the reasons you list. Your families immunity to other vaccinated diseases is the classic example of herd immunity, and proven because of the successful vaccine program around them and nothing to do with the protoplasm of the individuals or their choices not to vaccinate. I doubt you will believe that but no matter. All your arguments are fallacious. Try and open your mind to the last five or six posts I do on this topic if possible. Or not. Ostee Out. Respect. [/QUOTE]LOL. Are you trying to hint to us that Catwoman is your alter ego? What brought about this rant? I think you have the wrong person. For the 100th time, I am NOT anti-vax, I am pro-choice. I am not anti you fucking hookers without condoms, I am not anti you eating hookers out. My stance is that should be your choice.

I never said a vaccine should not have been tried. I said it should be left to the individual whether they wanted to receive it or not and things such as benefits or employment should not be held over their head for them choosing not to undergo said medical procedure. You are showing who is really coo coo for cocoa puffs around here.

[QUOTE=Osteoknot][b]I don't like to flex muscles especially in a place like this, but if you want credentials AND street cred, trust me, I have them both , in spades.[/b] [/QUOTE]LOL. Dude you are a funny mf!

Now I am going back to my vaccine board where we discuss hookers.

[QUOTE=JjBee62;2660724]Individually, neither is 100% effective. However, the cumulative dosing to almost the entire population makes up for the few which the vaccine didn't work on.

For Polio it was pretty easy. The disease can only be spread through fecal material and a person is only infectious for 1-2 weeks. Also polio virus is only found humans. No animals are known to carry it. This is beneficial.[/QUOTE]That is why I defined my terms. I capitulate but do not concede to your opinion. And I will leave you with this one final thought after which you may certainly have the last word, if you wish.

For most clinical data, the most useful measure is the end outcome, and not a measure of the process itself. Smallpox end outcome? Gone, eradicated. Polio? Soon to be the same. For me, your argument is a Red Herring. Ostee out.