Coronavirus | Discussion

OK . I'm not for it or against it .

>= She is the study , the organisation , the web site and the reviewer ,

I wonder who peer revued it ?

 

I wonder who can takes seriously a guy who uses 'revue' as a verb.

Spoiler: Oh!

and does not use a white coat...

 

Just when i thought that you couldnt sink to a lower level you post an interview where an anti mask and pro IVM lobbyist group interviews an anti mask and pro IVM lobbyist group .

Its an advertising video ---- > ' Researchers and authors of a new paper in the American Journal of Therapeutics discuss the irrefutable Science for Ivermectin. ' = them telling the world that they're right and that that proves that they're right .......... Just like your ' argumentation '


>I mean even if you don't want to deal with medical details anymore, you at least can see who they are as a person, as human. Simple insight into human nature requires no scientific backgrounds at ll.

LOL . Insults again ? I'm wrong and your right because you claim that i dont want to deal with medical details = Your saying that YOUR personal , subjective details are right and the ones that youi in your ignorance project on me are wrong = Duuuuuuuuh .

Then you continue with your under the belt anti intelectuel kiddy insult with ' Simple insight requires no scientific background ' ..... AGAIN ......... your sugesting that i am dumb , that i have no simple insight = YOU announce YOURSELF to be ' clever ' and because your ' clever ' your right and i'm dumb = Pseudointellectual blender scheisse .

 

@ ' Studys ' that are used by anti mask lobbyists to pretend to prove that masks are bad ---- >

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4344/htm

Is anything free of side effects ? Is anything free of potential hazards ?

 

@case-sensitive

@Yen didn't mean so. You're projecting all your insecurities. You're an arrogant guy with a profound inferiority complex. And your writing style denotes such complex and insecurities.

In your own personal world you believe scientists have the last word and their production of knowledge should be seen as a dogma.

You adore and submissively adhere to what scientific establishment preaches with blind faith. Poor you.

Science is the best thing can happen to any intelligent species but scientists... Pfff

 

You're a sick poor man
Your life must be so depressing while watching you as a keyboard warrior cowardly hiding from illness

 

>I wonder who can takes seriously a guy who uses 'revue' as a verb.

Seriously ? ...... What level will you sink to ? ...... What comes next ? .......... That i'm wrong because i'm a jew ? Because i'm black ?

 

Yes.

And <your> instead of <you're>
And <..........> instead of <...> or just one dot, period! Lol

I mean, I'm not an English speaking person but they in my elementary school thought me to watch grammar, orthography in both languages Spanish (native) and English (second) to respect basic rules of communication. This gives uniformity coherence and basic decency to people.

Roflmao "your" nuts old man.

 

Oh, Ali G, it's YOU!!!! WELCOME TO MDL!!!!!

 

While literally everyone is crapping their pants over this vaccine and covid in general, now that I'm vaccinated I don't give two s**ts what anyone else does.

 

Not clever - you can still get it and spread it...

Look above, the links I posted...

 

II dont give s**t what people say or do and i havent had a vacination .


@ people that have been to university ......... and still cant speak english .......... Look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

A language is two things .......... what intellectual morons insist is proper language , spelin end grama ......AND........ wot peeple speeek .

 

Ha, I only see a guy with fear concern in his eyes.

 

U of G prof says he is receiving workplace harassment after sharing vaccine concerns

https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-n...ssment-after-sharing-vaccine-concerns-3888634

 

yep haha quite creative liked

 

Common sense still needed!!! (Unless you like experimenting with your very life or at least health as such...)

https://www.theguardian.com/theobse...e-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated

"A MailOnline headline on 13 June read: “Study shows 29% of the 42 people who have died after catching the new strain had BOTH vaccinations.” In Public Health England’s technical briefing on 25 June, that figure had risen to 43% (50 of 117), with the majority (60%) having received at least one dose.

It could sound worrying that the majority of people dying in England with the now-dominant Delta (B.1.617.2) variant have been vaccinated. Does this mean the vaccines are ineffective? Far from it, it’s what we would expect from an effective but imperfect vaccine, a risk profile that varies hugely by age and the way the vaccines have been rolled out.

Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated.

The vaccines are not perfect. PHE estimates two-dose effectiveness against hospital admission with the Delta infections at around 94%. We can perhaps assume there is at least 95% protection against Covid-19 death, which means the lethal risk is reduced to less than a twentieth of its usual value.

But the risk of dying from Covid-19 is extraordinarily dependent on age: it halves for each six to seven year age gap. This means that someone aged 80 who is fully vaccinated essentially takes on the risk of an unvaccinated person of around 50 – much lower, but still not nothing, and so we can expect some deaths.

The PHE report also reveals that nearly a third of deaths from the Delta variant are of unvaccinated people over 50, which may be surprising given high vaccine coverage; for example, OpenSAFELY estimates more than 93% among the 65-69s. But there are lower rates in deprived areas and for some ethnicities and communities with limited coverage will continue to experience more than their fair share of loss.

Coverage and effectiveness are important numbers for assessing vaccination programmes. It is better to look at cool analysis by analysts, rather than hot takes on social and other media."

That'll be you, X, vlad & co...