Even Nicki Minaj is Smarter than the Vaccine Cucks

[BeautifulStranger]

No. Why double the deaths? He wants an analysis of women and unvaccinated death rate in a certain age group. So the population sample should be 100,000 unvaccinated women infected with Covid of a similar age.

Like I said, a lot of this is back of the napkin, neither of you have even brought up confidence intervals.

You do know I’m using only CDC data, right? So you are basically arguing that CDC data is fake?

Yes, I made additional, simple calculations to show the relative risk of a women in a specific age group who has no comorbilities, but any “Confidence intervals” are already within the CDC data.

Seems like you are trying to muddy up the waters, but no matter. I will provide line by line proof of my calculations and provide the CDC notes to their data.

By the way, the CDC data represents case fatality rates, which makes Covid look more dangerous than it would otherwise seem, as many, perhaps most, people who get Covid don’t even report it because their symptoms were too minor to seek medical attention. Myself, my girlfriend, and possibly even Bugenhagen may fall into that group. Anecdotal evidence of Covid seroprevalence indicates huge numbers of US population have been infected by Covid, but did not seek medical treatment. More on that in another post, after I have done my research.

 

[BeautifulStranger]

So double it to 4 per 100,000..
(The vax rate is 55% in US and her age group is likely to below .5.)

That number is so small.

Its ridiculous to mandate a temporary vaccine... for which we have no long term data.. which may not prevent infection by future variants.

Its worse than ridiculous...

it is immoral to mess with young healthy peoples immune systems and open them up to all sorts of potential problems...

No need to make any concessions. The number are the numbers, to be either reconfirmed or amended. The underlying point is the risks associated with Covid are not dire and should be allowed to be assumed by people. Covid vaccine mandates are excessive government overreach for the benefit of private enterprise over the long term health of constituents, as each vaccine injection taken chips away at overall immune health, in my opinion. Anecdotal evidence of this last point can be seen with pets in the US. Pets, with their substantially shorter lifecycles than humans, have evolved to the point of almost receiving a death sentence soon after birth if they are not vaccinated against common viruses. What happens to us in time if we allow ourselves to become over-vaccinated for Covid, a pathogen of only moderate risks, when a future, more dangerous pathogen causes a pandemic? 12 months or more is a long time when an emerging pathogen is decimating our population because of vaccine weakened immune systems.

We as a society really need to make sure we are making correct policy decisions concerning Covid.

 

[smallfil]

its back of the napkin but when the numbers are so low to begin with... its good.

if 55% the US population is vaxxed and its skew older..
Its likely very fair to say about 50% of this minaj population is vaccinated.

you then remove half the population and for the sake of argument state all the deaths occurred in the the non vaxxed population...

So you double the deaths and still see a ridiculously low number.

You can triple the deaths and its still super low.

The problem is they lump all deaths as being due to Corona Virus when even the ICUs are full of people for other serious health issues like heart disease? Corona Virus patients are far smaller in number. I would not be surprised if they accept some Corona Virus patients with asymptomatic symptoms if only to balloon the Corona Virus stats. Of course, hospitals get paid more for Corona Virus patients so, they classify people as having Corona Virus. Some doctors has objected to the practice.

 

[UsualName]

You do know I’m using only CDC data, right? So you are basically arguing that CDC data is fake?

Yes, I made additional, simple calculations to show the relative risk of a women in a specific age group who has no comorbilities, but any “Confidence intervals” are already within the CDC data.

Seems like you are trying to muddy up the waters, but no matter. I will provide line by line proof of my calculations and provide the CDC notes to their data.

By the way, the CDC data represents case fatality rates, which makes Covid look more dangerous than it would otherwise seem, as many, perhaps most, people who get Covid don’t even report it because their symptoms were too minor to seek medical attention. Myself, my girlfriend, and possibly even Bugenhagen may fall into that group. Anecdotal evidence of Covid seroprevalence indicates huge numbers of US population have been infected by Covid, but did not seek medical treatment. More on that in another post, after I have done my research.

i am not arguing the cdc data is fake, I am arguing you are confusing demographic breakdown as statistical analysis of a triple sub category. You are trying to extract a mortality rate 1. Woman 2. Unvaccinated 3. Particular age group from a sample population of 100,000 that includes all genders, all vaccinated status, and all ages.

Now, because I actually have taken statistics courses in college, I know we could extract that information if we had the demographic of the population pool and we could reweight for your demographic of interest. But we do not and saying the mortality of unvaccinated women in their early thirties is 3 in 100,000 is not based on a sound analysis.

I’m sorry. I know it’s not. Now what that number may be, I don’t know but it will undoubtedly be higher than what you claim.

 

[Bugenhagen]

No need to make any concessions. The number are the numbers, to be either reconfirmed or amended. The underlying point is the risks associated with Covid are not dire and should be allowed to be assumed by people. Covid vaccine mandates are excessive government overreach for the benefit of private enterprise over the long term health of constituents, as each vaccine injection taken chips away at overall immune health, in my opinion. Anecdotal evidence of this last point can be seen with pets in the US. Pets, with their substantially shorter lifecycles than humans, have evolved to the point of almost receiving a death sentence soon after birth if they are not vaccinated against common viruses. What happens to us in time if we allow ourselves to become over-vaccinated for Covid, a pathogen of only moderate risks, when a future, more dangerous pathogen causes a pandemic? 12 months or more is a long time when an emerging pathogen is decimating our population because of vaccine weakened immune systems.

We as a society really need to make sure we are making correct policy decisions concerning Covid.

To be fair if you read this in the voice of the "you're gonna have to answer to the Coca Cola company" guy (Colonel "Bat" Guano IMDB says), it's pretty good.

So about those other pandemics, they will be increasing in frequency as the population grows. The only reason we have as many humans as we do is we have been doing some very engineered stuff.

 

[Bugenhagen]

 

[Ricter]

View attachment 268101

Lol, that's about it.

 

[trading_jean]

Yes, I made additional, simple calculations to show the relative risk of a women in a specific age group who has no comorbilities, but any “Confidence intervals” are already within the CDC data.

Yes the calculations are simple. Unfortunately for you they are also completely wrong. I think it would be a good idea to have a good look at your calculations and post a correction.

 

[BeautifulStranger]

To be fair if you read this in the voice of the "you're gonna have to answer to the Coca Cola company" guy (Colonel "Bat" Guano IMDB says), it's pretty good.

So about those other pandemics, they will be increasing in frequency as the population grows. The only reason we have as many humans as we do is we have been doing some very engineered stuff.

Would it be fair to say that you wouldn’t be adverse to human population “Leveling” off to more “Sustainable” levels? Perhaps through reduced birth rates? As in reduced birth rates through controlled lowering of virility of the general population?

Practical solution, really. Let people live out their lives, while allowing a select few with outstanding attributes reproduce. I could get on board with that. Possibly.

A nicer solution involves better planning and better utilization of resources. If done right, our planet might safely support 20 billion people, although I can imagine emerging viruses having a field day well before we reach that number.

I’d say time to colonize other worlds, but the resources to get three people just into orbit seem enormous.

Aw, hell. Let’s vaccinate all humans into sterility, it would serve those resource hoggers justice!

Amen?

 

[BeautifulStranger]

Yes the calculations are simple. Unfortunately for you they are also completely wrong. I think it would be a good idea to have a good look at your calculations and post a correction.

Oh it’s coming. Have an additional source. The source unwittingly supports my, as well as others who use math, in support of their positions. It is delicious. To be fair, it is not all bad news for the anti-statistics crowd.