Jump to content

Pooter

Super User
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Pooter

  1. What are you talking about dude? Why are we comparing a single cherry-picked time interval from 2020 to our current 30 day rolling average? Let's look at the charts. EUA was issued on Dec 11 2020 Current 7 day rolling average Weird.. Because the 7 day rolling average looks like a decrease of over 50 percent. Well, we'd better expand that to 30 days to encompass more of the 2020 trough and more of the 2021 spike. Isn't data fun?! This methodology makes no sense because comparing two brief snippets in time tells you basically nothing. If we want to determine how well the vaccines prevent death, what if we compared the.. oh I don't know... DEATH RATES BETWEEN VAXED AND UNVAXED PEOPLE?? https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282 Turns out, you're 11 times more likely to die from delta if you're unvaccinated. It's almost like you're ignoring the obvious data and doing calendar fuckery to come up with a reason to hate the vaccine.
  2. Why would my social circle be the outlier if it much more closely aligns with the CDCs total case estimate? But fair enough, you did your risk analysis and made your decision. I don't think your methodology is sound (taking 1 day's risk level and extrapolating over 3 years) but let's assume for the sake of argument your estimate is correct and myocarditis risk is roughly equivalent. Wouldn't that still favor the vaccine? If it's basically a wash on the myocarditis front, you're getting the added protection from the vaccine with no net loss.
  3. Yeah the data passes the common sense test for me. I think most people know way more than 6 people who have had covid. I can name six in my squadron alone, and multiple in my immediate family. That is a cool risk calculator though. Haven't seen one with that much granularity before. I don't think sampling one day of risk and multiplying it by 1000 is going to be super accurate because community spread levels fluctuate massively. You could skew your risk estimate a lot in either direction by picking a day on a crest vs a trough and it's hard to know what a "standard day" if you will.. of covid risk really is.
  4. Your chances of contracting the virus will absolutely approach 100% over time. Especially when most of the vaccine hold outs choose to intentionally disregard the other mitigation measures as well.
  5. Where are you getting that 1/5 number in a 3 year period? If it's going off confirmed cases it is likely a gross underestimate of your actual risk because of reporting problems. The CDC estimates only 1 in 4 infections are reported which puts the total case estimate at 146 million infections from February 2020 to September 2021. Based on my rough math that puts your chance of getting it around 44% for the last 1.5 year period, keeping in mind the majority of that timeframe was before the more contagious delta variant was the dominant strain. So to your point, yes you do need to multiply those risk numbers by your odds of contracting the virus. But your odds are a significant under-estimation. If we're already at 44% penetration in a year and a half, we can safely assume your risk of getting covid over a 3 year period would be well over 50%. Meaning the myocarditis risk calculation still falls well in favor of the vaccine.
  6. This is what we're talking about with you guys continuously posting and making life choices based on dumpster-tier information. So Forbes is saying that the Germans are saying that scientists are saying something? Cool. If you're such an independent thinker go find the study and see for yourself. You saw a headline you agreed with and posted it without looking into the associated data whatsoever. This tells me: a) you aren't actually concerned about myocarditis and b) apparently a MSM headline can be taken as gospel, but only when it conveniently aligns with your pre-existing biases.
  7. From further into article: "None of the studies cast doubt on the vaccines’ effectiveness or the benefits they bring by safeguarding against Covid-19 and studies suggest the risks of heart inflammation are substantially higher in those infected with Covid-19." from the linked study: Myocarditis rate among young men who contracted covid: 450 per million Myocarditis rate among young men after vaccination: 77 per million In summary, the risk of myocarditis from the virus is 5.9 times higher than the risk from the vaccine. And if you want to minimize risk even further, just get Pfizer instead of moderna. Weird, It's almost like when you dig into the details the clickbait headline doesn't tell the whole story.
  8. Because societal norms still exist and the woke brigade is only interested in dumpstering the norms that don't serve their interests. Letting white dudes grow beards earns you precisely zero intersectional brownie points.
  9. That's why you should choose to not even partake in their dumb game. Eventually people will come to see your side as the one with standards and credibility. Eternally engaging in shit slinging with people who are always willing to stoop lower than you is a losing battle.
  10. Yes. Which doesn't make it okay. Calling yourself "project veritas" and then exhibiting the exact same behavior as the dumpster fire MSM is exactly the problem. If you want to hold a moral high ground over the MSM and the left in general, you actually have to conduct yourself to a higher standard than they do.
  11. I'm not pro mandate for the military either. I just don't complain about it because I have the self awareness to understand that the moment I signed on the dotted line, I voluntarily gave up some autonomy regarding my medical care. I'd also love to grow a beard and smoke pot recreationally, neither of which would impact my job performance in any way. But I don't, and I don't bitch and moan and protest about that either because it is part of the deal.. that I voluntarily agreed to.
  12. Not to speak for @Prozac but I do want to clarify something. You can be pro-vaccine and debate people's reasons for refusing the vax without being pro-mandate. I'm extremely anti-mandate (for the civilian population) but still think the reasons I've seen in the thread for vaccine refusal are horribly misinformed. Honestly, refusing the vaccine simply as a middle finger to the mandates is a far better reason than the parade of semantics and copypasta I've seen here.
  13. Do you throw an equally large shitfit when the flight doc prescribes you generic brand ibuprofen instead of Gucci name brand Motrin, or is your outrage limited only to hot button issues where dumb semantic games conveniently align with your political biases? Also, out of curiosity are you tracking any changes to the manufacturing, transport, and storage processes between the original EUA vaccine and comirnaty? And which ones in particular concern you? If you were actually able to get your hands on some holy grail comirnaty juice, would you take it?
  14. I don't know why you're so hung up on this word submission. The point here is that you took an oath to a document. That document lays the foundation for how the military operates to include the authoritarian, hierarchical structure we call chain of command. That chain of command goes all the way up to POTUS and Congress to the extent that they make the rules in the UCMJ. This is why you can't just ignore an order and say it's because you swore allegiance to a document. It all falls under the document. And good luck with the comirnaty strategy. Reputable sources say they're chemically identical.. which you'd think would be a relief to the hold outs who are apparently so concerned with the nomenclature attached to FDA approval and pharmaceutical branding. Well, turns out they're the same. What a relief! Unless.. those hold outs are just political hacks and this is the latest poop they're throwing at the wall in the hopes it sticks. First it was "I'm waiting on full FDA approval," then it was religious opposition to stem cells from decades ago, now it's brand name issues. If I didn't know better I'd almost say you'll have problems with the vaccine no matter what!
  15. Yes, the submission part is clear in the phrase "true faith and allegiance." The thing is that the constitution is a rather long and involved document and it has parts in it outlining exactly who has authority (read: authoritarian control) over the military. Article 2 section 2: makes the president the commander in chief of the military. Article 1 section 8: provides the basis for congress's establishment of the UCMJ. So it isn't quite as simple as swearing to support a piece of paper. Because that piece of paper says the president can tell you what to do, and so can congress through the UCMJ. The comirnaty/FDA semantics will get hashed out in court but the basis for the fed to make military members do something they don't necessarily agree with is absolutely there, and you voluntarily submitted to that control by taking the oath.
  16. I really don't get this argument. The messaging changed over time and that's somehow a bad thing? Mountains of new information on the virus and treatments have come to light since spring of 2020 when "15 days to slow the spread" was basically the best way we knew to slow down a thing we knew almost nothing about. We have vaccines now. We have almost two years of global data on the transmission and effects of this disease. There are a host of new variants that didn't exist two years ago. Two years ago people were Lysol-ing their groceries. So why in the world would the messaging stay the same?
  17. 1) Glad you're okay. 2) Does your situation not qualify for a medical exemption? I would think a lung specialist specifically telling you it would be dangerous for you to get the shot would easily qualify. And again, I don't agree with mandates but I thought they do have provisions for extenuating medical circumstances.
  18. Yeah dude.. it's called the paparazzi and it's the absolute dumpster basement of the journalism world. So maybe it should give you pause if you're trying to do serious political reporting and behaving like the paparazzi.
  19. It is not surprising in the least that we deluded ourselves regarding the ANA's capabilities. The modern US military is driven by shoe clerks with slide shows and the most important thing in the world is that the slides are green. Generals' and Colonels' next promotions depend on slides being green, not honesty or lethality. We are just as delusional about our own capabilities, if not more so.
  20. Ahh yes. Definitely no ambush. Because that's how normal people conduct interviews.. by sneaking up on someone walking with headphones on their own personal time. Yeah.. come to think of it that's where most tv interviews I see take place.. on quiet neighborhood sidewalks... As super interesting as it is to debate public/personal boundaries with you, turns out there's a difference between the limits of what is legal, and what is professionally acceptable. I'm not all that surprised you think this is okay because, again, it's a person you don't like being subjected to indecent behavior. Reference my above comment about partisan hackery. And the fact you think she's running away because "tHe pEoPle" are catching on and not because a crew of strange dudes with cameras are accosting her in her private life, is the icing on the stupid cake.
  21. Wrong. We haven't all agreed to this. People still understand what standard of behavior is unacceptable. They just selectively apply that standard. A week ago republicans had a massive problem with protesters following Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom. At least that was at work. Now it's magically okay to invade someone's private life, and not only that! When she runs away after being rightfully startled by a camera crew of random dudes confronting her on a neighborhood street, it's supposed to be some kind of damning admission of guilt. This is actually turning out to be a pretty good litmus test. If you expect equal treatment of people and hold everyone to a baseline standard of decency, there's a good chance you're a person who holds principles in higher regard than political affiliation. If you selectively apply those standards and relish when they're violated against people you don't like, there's a good chance you're a partisan hack.
  22. Well from the looks of the video they never went on her property, but it still is well outside the bounds of professional journalism. Funny how these baseops freedom champions are all for civility and respectful discourse, unless it's someone they don't like. In that case, chase that bitch and keep filming! And make some demeaning comments about her weight while we're at it!
  23. So If you disagree with someone enough, it's now okay to go to their house and fuck with them on their personal time? Is this not exactly the logic the left uses?
  24. To track down someones home address and confront them by surprise while they're walking, and film them without permission? Yes, that is professionally inappropriate. It's wrong when protesters accost republicans in DC restaurants and this is wrong too. Respect for public and private life boundaries should exist for people you agree and disagree with. Here's a crazy idea. Go to the Pfizer offices and get a statement from the company. I'm sure they have an attentive and very well staffed PR department.
  25. Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.
×
×
  • Create New...