Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by flyingpylon » Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:22 am

Xan wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:54 am
flyingpylon wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:51 am
Mark Leavy wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:03 pm
So... let's have some honest discussion about the risk trade offs. There are some dangers to contracting Covid and there are some dangers from the way the mRNA vaccines work. Fair enough. What are the numbers? What are the risk factors to include? It certainly isn't all age based - that is just a poor man's proxy.
Careful… a discussion like that could really eff up The Narrative. It’s vaxxed vs unvaxxed… only go to age if someone really pushes it. Beyond that, just shut it all down… attack their grammar or something, whatever you have to do.
I agree with Mark's comment 100%, for what it's worth. And you hardly had a problem with grammar: you claimed that the vet's crackpot theory had been proven true when of course it has not. That's not a minor technicality.
I wasn’t referring to that in my last comment but thanks for sharing your assessment.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: https://goo.gl/maps/pJecuAUsCapAMSFL7
Contact:

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by dualstow » Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:21 am

{ivermectin}
Mark Leavy wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:01 pm
Be wary of dating horse women.
Obligatory:
filly
filly
FCEC3307-CFD7-4E4D-B612-14E9545A0D2C.jpeg (421.3 KiB) Viewed 938 times
RIP COLIN POWELL, 84.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4580
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by sophie » Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:45 am

Xan wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:17 pm
If they do get infected (which is a matter of time) they're at much greater risk than they are from the vaccine.
Just a reminder that you have to be very careful about not only the numerator but also the denominator when you cite numbers to support a given position. There is a logical flaw in the quoted sentence: when people mean "infection" they mean either 'positive test" or "clinical case of COVID." What you actually care about in this scenario is exposure to the COVID virus, which is an order of magnitude more prevalent than an established COVID infection - ESPECIALLY in kids who as a group are well known to be highly resistant to COVID. The science behind this is that they are too young to have expressed ACE2 receptors in their lung tissue.

There's limited data on the difference between COVID exposure (which is something that will happen to all of us, if it hasn't happened already) and clinical infection. The only 3 pieces of info I'm aware of:

1. Ship outbreaks. It's a sure bet that all the passengers & crew of the Diamond Princess were exposed to the virus, but only 20% of them got sick. And this was with a passenger population that was almost exclusively over 65, as is typical for people taking cruises. So that's a 5:1 ratio of exposure to clinical infection in a highly vulnerable population. You can probably make similar estimates from early nursing home outbreaks, where I believe the proportion of sick residents was similar.

2. Random antibody testing in New York State & City: In NYC, 20% of people sampled (randomly selected by testers hanging around shopping centers) turned up positive for antibodies. This was in May 2020, when much less than 1% of the city's population had clinical/diagnosed COVID. That's a 20:1 ratio among (mostly) healthy adults.

3. Random antibody testing in Santa Clara County, CA: Similar study that concluded the ratio of exposed/positive antibodies to clinical infections was closer to 50:1. I'm not sure if children were included, but I would assume the population would be biased toward healthy Caucasians compared to the New York City study due to the large proportion of minorities in NYC.

The question has not been further studied that I'm aware of....if anyone else knows of a study please do chime in. There's no data on children except the early evidence from China, but at a guess, a ratio of 40-50:1 for exposure to clinical COVID is probably in the ballpark.
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by murphy_p_t » Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:31 pm

;D
Xan wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:17 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:18 pm
Boys more at risk from Pfizer vax than from Covid: Study:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ests-study

I don’t think I would be rushing to get my own kids vaccinated.
That isn't really comparing apples to apples: it's comparing the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis among kids who get the vaccine against the risk of kids going to the hospital from Covid infection *at current infection rates over the next 4 months* which is pretty arbitrary.

If they do get infected (which is a matter of time) they're at much greater risk than they are from the vaccine. And note that the doctors interviewed said they would vaccinate their own children

But, I appreciate the concern about this from the antivax crowd. I assume this means you'll be getting the vaccine in order to help protect the kids, right? Remember the CDC said that while vaccinated people *can* still spread, but they do so at a much lower rate.

I'm very much looking forward to the official release of the under 12 study. Hopefully we'll know more about all this soon. I'm hoping it's a slam dunk but it may well not be.

That's cute of you to not only to listen to, but carefully consider, and presumably make decisions based on the propaganda from this lying regime and their servile media outlets.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Xan » Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:44 am

sophie wrote:
Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:45 am
Xan wrote:
Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:17 pm
If they do get infected (which is a matter of time) they're at much greater risk than they are from the vaccine.
Just a reminder that you have to be very careful about not only the numerator but also the denominator when you cite numbers to support a given position. There is a logical flaw in the quoted sentence: when people mean "infection" they mean either 'positive test" or "clinical case of COVID." What you actually care about in this scenario is exposure to the COVID virus, which is an order of magnitude more prevalent than an established COVID infection - ESPECIALLY in kids who as a group are well known to be highly resistant to COVID. The science behind this is that they are too young to have expressed ACE2 receptors in their lung tissue.

There's limited data on the difference between COVID exposure (which is something that will happen to all of us, if it hasn't happened already) and clinical infection. The only 3 pieces of info I'm aware of:

1. Ship outbreaks. It's a sure bet that all the passengers & crew of the Diamond Princess were exposed to the virus, but only 20% of them got sick. And this was with a passenger population that was almost exclusively over 65, as is typical for people taking cruises. So that's a 5:1 ratio of exposure to clinical infection in a highly vulnerable population. You can probably make similar estimates from early nursing home outbreaks, where I believe the proportion of sick residents was similar.

2. Random antibody testing in New York State & City: In NYC, 20% of people sampled (randomly selected by testers hanging around shopping centers) turned up positive for antibodies. This was in May 2020, when much less than 1% of the city's population had clinical/diagnosed COVID. That's a 20:1 ratio among (mostly) healthy adults.

3. Random antibody testing in Santa Clara County, CA: Similar study that concluded the ratio of exposed/positive antibodies to clinical infections was closer to 50:1. I'm not sure if children were included, but I would assume the population would be biased toward healthy Caucasians compared to the New York City study due to the large proportion of minorities in NYC.

The question has not been further studied that I'm aware of....if anyone else knows of a study please do chime in. There's no data on children except the early evidence from China, but at a guess, a ratio of 40-50:1 for exposure to clinical COVID is probably in the ballpark.
Thanks, Sophie. The most significant piece of I Shrugged's article was:
In the latest study, which has yet to be peer reviewed, Dr Tracy Høeg at the University of California and colleagues analysed adverse reactions to Covid vaccines in US children aged 12 to 17 during the first six months of 2021. They estimate the rate of myocarditis after two shots of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to be 162.2 cases per million for healthy boys aged 12 to 15 and 94 cases per million for healthy boys aged 16 to 17. The equivalent rates for girls were 13.4 and 13 cases per million, respectively. At current US infection rates, the risk of a healthy adolescent being taken to hospital with Covid in the next 120 days is about 44 per million, they said.
Sadly while there's a study linked for the myocarditis numbers, there isn't any reference for where the 44 per million number came from. To get apples to apples, we'd need to know the number of kids getting either clinical Covid or exposure that yields those 44 per million. Is that not right?
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4580
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by sophie » Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:52 pm

See article in the other thread about how you go about counting hospitalized COVID cases. Yes, I assume the number 44 per million represents the number of hospitalized children who tested positive for COVID during admission - and therefore includes both genuine COVID cases, and asymptomatic COVID in a population of kids hospitalized for an unrelated reason.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1555
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by I Shrugged » Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:40 pm

Here is a CDC article about children. One interesting tidbit found in the paragraph preceding the "Discussion" heading:
A total of eight in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths in persons aged 0–17 years occurred during August 2020–August 2021 (0.4% of hospitalized patients).
8 kids dying in a year is not very many. It makes more skeptical of vaxxing themXXXXXXXXXXX
EDIT: Not a nationwide number, but a small sample. Thanks Xan for pointing out this big mistake in my post.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e1.htm
Last edited by I Shrugged on Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Xan » Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:46 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:40 pm
Here is a CDC article about children. One interesting tidbit found in the paragraph preceding the "Discussion" heading:
A total of eight in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths in persons aged 0–17 years occurred during August 2020–August 2021 (0.4% of hospitalized patients).
8 kids dying in a year is not very many. It makes more skeptical of vaxxing them.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e1.htm
That isn't 8 nationwide, it's 8 out of the 1790 pediatric hospitalizations that were recorded in the "BD Insights Research Database".
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1555
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by I Shrugged » Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:47 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:46 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:40 pm
Here is a CDC article about children. One interesting tidbit found in the paragraph preceding the "Discussion" heading:
A total of eight in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths in persons aged 0–17 years occurred during August 2020–August 2021 (0.4% of hospitalized patients).
8 kids dying in a year is not very many. It makes more skeptical of vaxxing them.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e1.htm
That isn't 8 nationwide, it's 8 out of the 1790 pediatric hospitalizations that were recorded in the "BD Insights Research Database".
Ohhhh. That will teach me to skim. Thanks.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3712
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Xan » Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:48 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:47 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:46 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:40 pm
Here is a CDC article about children. One interesting tidbit found in the paragraph preceding the "Discussion" heading:
A total of eight in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths in persons aged 0–17 years occurred during August 2020–August 2021 (0.4% of hospitalized patients).
8 kids dying in a year is not very many. It makes more skeptical of vaxxing them.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e1.htm
That isn't 8 nationwide, it's 8 out of the 1790 pediatric hospitalizations that were recorded in the "BD Insights Research Database".
Ohhhh. That will teach me to skim. Thanks.
I had to read it a number of times myself, certainly hoping it would be true!
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Maddy » Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:33 am

sophie wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:52 pm
See article in the other thread about how you go about counting hospitalized COVID cases. Yes, I assume the number 44 per million represents the number of hospitalized children who tested positive for COVID during admission - and therefore includes both genuine COVID cases, and asymptomatic COVID in a population of kids hospitalized for an unrelated reason.
Exactly. This statistical sleight of hand has permeated virtually ALL of the official CoVid-19 statistics since the beginning of this political ploy.

Anyone who can't appreciate the significance of this statistical hoax is, at this point, either woefully incapable of the most rudimentary analytical thinking or is voluntarily turning a blind eye to the truth.

Do any of the fearmongering proponents of vaccines ever ask themselves why an entire global force of public health "experts" has been required to resort to flat-out statistical distortions in order to advance their case?
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4580
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by sophie » Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:03 am

Maddy wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:33 am
sophie wrote:
Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:52 pm
See article in the other thread about how you go about counting hospitalized COVID cases. Yes, I assume the number 44 per million represents the number of hospitalized children who tested positive for COVID during admission - and therefore includes both genuine COVID cases, and asymptomatic COVID in a population of kids hospitalized for an unrelated reason.
Exactly. This statistical sleight of hand has permeated virtually ALL of the official CoVid-19 statistics since the beginning of this political ploy.

Anyone who can't appreciate the significance of this statistical hoax is, at this point, either woefully incapable of the most rudimentary analytical thinking or is voluntarily turning a blind eye to the truth.

Do any of the fearmongering proponents of vaccines ever ask themselves why an entire global force of public health "experts" has been required to resort to flat-out statistical distortions in order to advance their case?
I don't know if it's intentional statistical distortion. I think it's just sheer laziness combined with systemic reporting limitations. Hospital discharge information contains limited information that does not really reflect clinical judgment, including whether a case is truly a COVID infection or not. It's all encoded in EHRs which were designed for the benefit of lawyers, billing, and coding organizations - NOT for doctors, and certainly not for communicating meaningful medical information. There is basically no way to gather the statistic that we need: number of actual COVID cases categorized according to severity.

Yes, someone always chimes in at this point to say that some EHRs (SOME only, not all) will allow a physician to record a primary diagnosis. Several problems with this. First, it will not happen consistently enough to be reliable. Second, there's no easy way to mine the information on a national level, since most EHRs don't permit free text searches. Third, hospitals have a huge incentive to pressure physicians to put down COVID as primary regardless of the truth, because it means extra payments.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Maddy » Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:41 am

sophie wrote:
Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:03 am
I don't know if it's intentional statistical distortion. I think it's just sheer laziness combined with systemic reporting limitations. Hospital discharge information contains limited information that does not really reflect clinical judgment, including whether a case is truly a COVID infection or not. It's all encoded in EHRs which were designed for the benefit of lawyers, billing, and coding organizations - NOT for doctors, and certainly not for communicating meaningful medical information. There is basically no way to gather the statistic that we need: number of actual COVID cases categorized according to severity.

Yes, someone always chimes in at this point to say that some EHRs (SOME only, not all) will allow a physician to record a primary diagnosis. Several problems with this. First, it will not happen consistently enough to be reliable. Second, there's no easy way to mine the information on a national level, since most EHRs don't permit free text searches. Third, hospitals have a huge incentive to pressure physicians to put down COVID as primary regardless of the truth, because it means extra payments.
It's a statistical distortion because the proponents of these "statistics" know perfectly well that the underlying data is so lacking in meaning that it cannot possibly support valid or reliable conclusions. They know perfectly well that there is, and never has been, any consistent definition of the term "case." They know perfectly well the limitations of a PCR test and that their systematic conflating of a positive test result with a clinically meaningful event has wildly exaggerated the supposed incidence of disease. They know perfectly well that the obscene financial incentives being dolled out to hospitals for a diagnosis of CoVid has rendered virtually all of the data coming out of these institutions meaningless. They know--and in fact have been complicit in engineering--testing criteria that incorporate blatant sampling bias.

Yet they have proceeded to take all of that crazy, meaningless pseudodata and, after going through all the usual statistical gymnastics, to declare--as if by magic--that they have a set of meaningful conclusions. Not only meaningful conclusions, but conclusions meaningful enough to shut down entire economies and to lock down entire populations.

So while I agree with Sophie's comment that systemic reporting limitations prevent the collection of meaningful data, the fact that this defective data continues to be analyzed and used to support broad, politically-motivated public health agendas suggests something more than mere laziness. Of significance is the fact that the blatant misuse of statistics that we have seen at virtually every step of the analysis has been at the hands of people whose education and training is directed, in overwhelming part, to separating good data from bad. In short, they know exactly what they are doing.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4580
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by sophie » Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:10 am

That might be a fair assessment, Maddy.

The trends shown are probably legit, but yes, I'd agree that scientists (though perhaps not journalists) should know better than to take the absolute numbers as gospel.

We should avoid that here on the forum, so we can hold ourselves to higher standards than the scientific community. Shameful to say that but....if the shoe fits, as they say.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Maddy » Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:08 pm

It seems that even the leftwing news outlets can no longer cite the statistics with a straight face.
The far-left Atlantic, owned by leftist billionaire and widow of Steve Jobs, Laurene Powell Jobs, admitted in a Monday piece the dramatic reporting on coronavirus hospitalizations may be misleading, given it does not account for the severity of the illness of those hospitalized, nor does it specifically identify if individuals are actually hospitalized for another reason.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... e-illness/
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Maddy » Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:23 pm

I thought some more about the "lazy" hypothesis, and after additional consideration can see how it might make sense. Under normal (pre-CoVid) circumstances, there are very strong institutional/professional disincentives to cheating. You send something to a journal that takes even the slightest liberties with the study techniques or the statistical analysis, and you can expect to be excoriated up and down by your peers. That much I remember vividly from my years as a research tech. In the area of CoVid research, however, we have the unprecedented situation where you advance as an academic not by the merits of your work, but by your willingness to align yourself with the correct political players and with the correct pseudoscientific narrative. If the politically charged atmosphere around you is suddenly willing to tolerate--if not reward--poor science, then researchers have no particular incentive to hold themselves to the usual standards of professional integrity. Heck, if you can add three pages to your CV with shoddy, narrative-affirming work--and in the process be proclaimed a rising star in the academic firmament--why wouldn't the inherently lazy see an opportunity just waiting to be exploited?
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by murphy_p_t » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:32 am

This Babylon bee article is at least as relevant to this discussion as considering the fake stats put out by the hive.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021 ... sunscreen/
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: https://goo.gl/maps/pJecuAUsCapAMSFL7
Contact:

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by dualstow » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:10 am

murphy_p_t wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:32 am
This Babylon bee article is at least as relevant to this discussion as considering the fake stats put out by the hive.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021 ... sunscreen/
Right, because we all know sunburn is communicable and contagious. I love the Babylon Bee, but this analogy falls flat.
RIP COLIN POWELL, 84.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by SomeDude » Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:39 pm

dualstow wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:10 am
murphy_p_t wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:32 am
This Babylon bee article is at least as relevant to this discussion as considering the fake stats put out by the hive.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021 ... sunscreen/
Right, because we all know sunburn is communicable and contagious. I love the Babylon Bee, but this analogy falls flat.
I think it's spot on.

Someone shared this earlier in my day.
Attachments
download (4).jpeg
download (4).jpeg (13.64 KiB) Viewed 471 times
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 6617
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by vnatale » Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:21 pm

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (21.08 KiB) Viewed 708 times
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 6617
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by vnatale » Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:23 pm

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (47.37 KiB) Viewed 707 times
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1721
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by Mark Leavy » Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:31 pm

Fascinating Vinnie.

I admit, that without commentary or explanation, I am free wheeling to try and understand what the fuck you are posting, but... let me give it a shot.

It appears that if we look at the one standard deviation statistics (68%) then Black Protestant New Yorkers represent 2/3rds of all the folks that have been vaccinated.

Did I get that right?
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by murphy_p_t » Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:53 am

For the number crunchers attempting to draw meaningful conclusions from all the data... Is it at all reasonable to suspect that what is reported in this article is an isolated attempt to manipulate the public?


https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morni ... 97611.html
murphy_p_t
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by murphy_p_t » Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:00 am

Mark Leavy wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:31 pm
Fascinating Vinnie.

I admit, that without commentary or explanation, I am free wheeling to try and understand what the fuck you are posting, but... let me give it a shot.

It appears that if we look at the one standard deviation statistics (68%) then Black Protestant New Yorkers represent 2/3rds of all the folks that have been vaccinated.

Did I get that right?

Vinny, please advise. I'd like to know if I can refer to Mark in the future as a diviner of your posts.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 11922
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: https://goo.gl/maps/pJecuAUsCapAMSFL7
Contact:

Re: Reasons why I will not be getting injected for the Wuhan

Post by dualstow » Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:19 am

dualstow wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:10 am
Right, because we all know sunburn is communicable and contagious. I love the Babylon Bee, but this analogy falls flat.
SomeDude wrote:
Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:39 pm

I think it's spot on.

Someone shared this earlier in my day.
{protect the protected meme}
I think that’s much closer to the mark.
RIP COLIN POWELL, 84.
Post Reply