4 ms·
This article is a mess, and doesn't make sense. It probably stems from the fact that it is from our favourite fear-porn modellers at Imperial College London. 2
by ipspam 5y ago
This article is a mess, and doesn't make sense. It probably stems from the fact that it is from our favourite fear-porn modellers at Imperial College London.
2/3rds of your control group of previously covid positive individuals caught COVID for a second time, all in the span of 2 weeks? Bullshit!
The 2/3rds figure is clearly bullshit, and the article doesnt sufficiently explain it, and where it tries, it stinks to high heaven.
Think about it! All these people supposedly already had COVID, and they all got it again? 3500ish of 5000ish, Two thirds of the group in a two week period?
It's clearly an ideological organization, and I wouldn't be surprised if their self reporting pool of people aren't partially filled with bat shit crazy activists thinking they are saving lies by helping rig a study.
- ipspam 5y agoEdit: I misread what they said. But that's by design. It's pure trickery. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. 100,000 PCR tests analyzed, 3500 had prior infections. This means that 3.5% were reinfections, not 66%.