mixed_biscuits
_________________________
The success criterion for the trials was symptom attenuation, not mortality.A claim made without evidence...
It sounds as if you've misunderstood the purpose of the trials, unsurprisingly.
The success criterion for the trials was symptom attenuation, not mortality.A claim made without evidence...
It sounds as if you've misunderstood the purpose of the trials, unsurprisingly.
I'll ask my friend who works there how hard they've whipped him to make him falsify the data.ONS probably under political pressure to make the vax look good.
Then it's not comparable to real-world data on mortality reduction, is it?The success criterion for the trials was symptom attenuation, not mortality.
It's not falsified; it's just partial.I'll ask my friend who works there how hard they've whipped him to make him falsify the data.
It's better than the real-world data as the comparison was more like for like.Then it's not comparable to real-world data on mortality reduction, is it?
Given that you'd be unlikely to get legal clearance for a medial trial that involves giving people either a drug or a placebo, and then deliberately infecting them with a virus that could kill them...
Well which is it? You're claiming the data is being fudged, aren't you?It's not falsified; it's just partial.
Well which is it? You're claiming the data is being fudged, aren't you?
Unlike you, I've worked in the civil service. It doesn't just publish any old shit because of "political pressure".
Gentlemen, it is time to duel. As no satisfaction has been reached between the mutual parties over 481 pages, honour decrees you choose your muskets at a suitable date and time, finishing this for good. En garde!
View attachment 8951
View attachment 8952
I've thought about this and you've got it exactly the wrong way around, because it was only from late spring onwards, during the most intensive phase of the vaccination campaign, that the more virulent delta variant was introduced to the UK and quickly became the dominant variant. So most of the deaths of vaccinated people will come from a period in which the disease was more inherently dangerous, not less.It's clearly not an attempt to get at the unvarnished truth: what they've presented makes the vax seem more effective because they're deriving most of the unvaxxed stat from a period during which the virus is more dangerous than the period which contributes most to the vaxxed stat, without accounting for the factor that is most influential, seasonality; that's what Oxford is saying.
A devastating argument, built up with surgical precision, piece by piece from irrefutable facts, to finally form the inescapable checkmate you have been threatening for so long.ONS probably under political pressure to make the vax look good.
Not what Oxford say; read the articleI've thought about this and you've got it exactly the wrong way around, because it was only from late spring onwards, during the most intensive phase of the vaccination campaign, that the more virulent delta variant was introduced to the UK and quickly became the dominant variant. So most of the deaths of vaccinated people will come from a period in which the disease was more inherently dangerous, not less.
In other words, if we apply what we might as well call the Biscuits Correction, the vaccination is even more effective at preventing death from covid-19 than the factor of 32 implied by the data.
Thats a lovely painting. Who done it?Gentlemen, it is time to duel. As no satisfaction has been reached between the mutual parties over 481 pages, honour decrees you choose your muskets at a suitable date and time, finishing this for good. En garde!
View attachment 8951
View attachment 8952
Biscuits's endless sealioning has in fact induced a Cu Chulainn-style warp-spasm in me, with one massive eye and one tiny eye, like the Steve Bell cartoons of Tony Blair.