You can't prove the vaccine saved anybody. You would need a time machine for that. The test subject would need to be medically evaluated before the start of the experiment to check for antibodies. Next the subject would be given the vaccine and monitored and evaluated for a given time period. Then Mr. Peabody and Sherman would need to us…
You can't prove the vaccine saved anybody. You would need a time machine for that. The test subject would need to be medically evaluated before the start of the experiment to check for antibodies. Next the subject would be given the vaccine and monitored and evaluated for a given time period. Then Mr. Peabody and Sherman would need to use 'way back machine'. You would need to go back in time to the moment before the subject was given the vaccine. The subject would not receive a vaccine and would be monitored and evaluated for a given time period and the result sets would be compared. A more simple explanation. The 'vaccine' was bull shit and they knew it. It took the CDC 2 weeks to notify other organizations that the 'vaccine' caused blood clots and killed people. I knew right away. My friend Roland is dead and he took the vaccine. It killed him in one week.
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, the numbers don't make any sense. We saved 20 million but could have saved 600,000 more? So we saved 97% of the people it was possible to save? How exactly does that work when we're nowhere near 97% vaccination coverage?
Well, for starters, let's just assume the vaccines actually work, actually save lives. (Set aside any doubts you may have, just for a moment.)
Now, it should be theoretically possible to save 97% of the people who were going to die from Covid without vaccinating 97% of the population. All we had to do is focus the vaccination campaign on the elderly, the immune compromised and other folks known to be vulnerable.
Further, if it happens to be true that under vaccinated places (like, say, the developing world) have large numbers of young people and relatively few elderly people, only a relatively small number of lives could be saved.
I'm not saying this is what actually happened, just that, theoretically, if the vaccines are highly effective and if we know in advance who's vulnerable to dying from Covid, we wouldn't need to vaccinate all that many people to save almost every vulnerable person.
But, OTOH, I'm not saying this study is great and reliable and true. I'm not saying the vaccines are all that effective. I'm not saying that only 600,000 Covid vulnerable people were to be found in the developing world.
Jv - I'm sorry for your loss of your friend. You are correct. In order to prove that the vaccine worked, they would have had to have accurate data but we all know (the critical thinkers and one's not blinded by the manipulation) that's not the case. Billy Bob Gates already pointed out that one of his favorite books is "How to Lie Using Statistics". We know what he's about. I haven't trusted much of anything he is behind, especially vaccines.
That's a classic book. I read it as a teen (parent's book from mid-20th century.) As the title might suggest, the book is, in fact, a slightly irreverent yet entirely pragmatic survey of all the mischief that can be wrought with facts and figures.
You can't prove the vaccine saved anybody. You would need a time machine for that. The test subject would need to be medically evaluated before the start of the experiment to check for antibodies. Next the subject would be given the vaccine and monitored and evaluated for a given time period. Then Mr. Peabody and Sherman would need to use 'way back machine'. You would need to go back in time to the moment before the subject was given the vaccine. The subject would not receive a vaccine and would be monitored and evaluated for a given time period and the result sets would be compared. A more simple explanation. The 'vaccine' was bull shit and they knew it. It took the CDC 2 weeks to notify other organizations that the 'vaccine' caused blood clots and killed people. I knew right away. My friend Roland is dead and he took the vaccine. It killed him in one week.
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt, the numbers don't make any sense. We saved 20 million but could have saved 600,000 more? So we saved 97% of the people it was possible to save? How exactly does that work when we're nowhere near 97% vaccination coverage?
Pure garbage.
Well, for starters, let's just assume the vaccines actually work, actually save lives. (Set aside any doubts you may have, just for a moment.)
Now, it should be theoretically possible to save 97% of the people who were going to die from Covid without vaccinating 97% of the population. All we had to do is focus the vaccination campaign on the elderly, the immune compromised and other folks known to be vulnerable.
Further, if it happens to be true that under vaccinated places (like, say, the developing world) have large numbers of young people and relatively few elderly people, only a relatively small number of lives could be saved.
I'm not saying this is what actually happened, just that, theoretically, if the vaccines are highly effective and if we know in advance who's vulnerable to dying from Covid, we wouldn't need to vaccinate all that many people to save almost every vulnerable person.
But, OTOH, I'm not saying this study is great and reliable and true. I'm not saying the vaccines are all that effective. I'm not saying that only 600,000 Covid vulnerable people were to be found in the developing world.
Where do they get any of their numbers? They make them up, pure and simple. Some stupid party moron makes them up.
Jv - I'm sorry for your loss of your friend. You are correct. In order to prove that the vaccine worked, they would have had to have accurate data but we all know (the critical thinkers and one's not blinded by the manipulation) that's not the case. Billy Bob Gates already pointed out that one of his favorite books is "How to Lie Using Statistics". We know what he's about. I haven't trusted much of anything he is behind, especially vaccines.
That's a classic book. I read it as a teen (parent's book from mid-20th century.) As the title might suggest, the book is, in fact, a slightly irreverent yet entirely pragmatic survey of all the mischief that can be wrought with facts and figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics