6 ms·

The rate of transmission fell 11% for each booster........ Great. So basically 90% of transmission were still going on. So all you have to explain is a 11% fall

The rate of transmission fell 11% for each booster........ Great. So basically 90% of transmission were still going on. So all you have to explain is a 11% fall over a decently large span of time, during which most transmission of covid were still happening. Sounds like a clear example of natural immunity building due to the vaccinated crowd still transmitting anyway. This stuff is getting comical. Your second graph.. "cases OR deaths". Quality science.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
I guess this is where you back peddle. Sounds like a clear example of natural immunity building due to the vaccinated crowd still transmitting anyway. You are basing this on nothing. You linked nothing, you have no evidence of any kind. You are hallucinating what you want to believe. Your second graph.. "cases OR deaths". Quality science. One of many graphs that I linked. You said: So unless you were in a high risk category for death from covid, was it necessary? Of course it was, you can tell by the overwhelming amount of evidence out there, some of it I linked here. https://images.jifo.co/2547186_1625656875106.png https://images.jifo.co/2547186_1625656875106.png There is a huge spectrum in the severity of an infection. Vaccines reduce the severity and duration of everything. Some people can test positive without symptoms. You would know this if you cared about being informed of reality. Let's see where you get your information.
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  You don't need a link to process and understand what I said about the 11% reduction for every dose. Think a little. Time passes between doses. Even your own study shows the doses only reduce transmission a little. This transmission are occuring as time goes by. Thus if you check later doses against earlier, yes you'll see a reduction in transmission. Because tons of people were spreading it. You could have done this study with chocolate chip cookies over time and said "yes, 6 months of eating cookies reduces covid transmission by 11%"
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    You said it didn't matter, the evidence is the graphs is crystal clear. As vaccines were rolled out there was a massive difference and the pandemic was muted for people who were vaccinated. You are ignoring evidence and hallucinating your own results while repeating your claims over and over. You don't need a link Yes you do. You can't explain why you think what you do. Think a little. Think a little less and leave it up to the experts. yes, 6 months of eating cookies reduces covid transmission by 11%" Over 6 months the difference in cases for vaccinated was a tiny fraction compared to unvaccinated. I showed you this already. How do you explain this? You haven't linked anything of your own, you haven't backed up any of your claims, you haven't explained why you think what you do and you haven't explained where you get your information. Vaccine denial is reality denial.
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      I'm not an encyclopedia of links. There are full time researchers with phds that go more in depth into why you're basically wrong about what you say. If you want to trust the summary generators you read of faulty logic, go for it. All you did was show me a prison study that can be refuted by basic logic, and a graph of labeling that made zero sense for anyone with a brain.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        I'm not an encyclopedia of links. You didn't link anything. There are full time researchers with phds that go more in depth into why you're basically wrong about what you say. Prove it. Show any evidence at all. If you want to trust the summary generators you read of faulty logic, go for it. I showed you multiple graphs. I linked you six different studies and graphs. You linked nothing. You have no evidence. You just keep repeating yourself and saying 'think about it bro'. Show some evidence, show some data, show some statistics, show some real information.
        talldatethrow 3y ago
        By "I'm not an encyclopedia of links", I meant that I do not have a collection of links of past things I have read to pull from and provide to you. That is why I didn't give you a link. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. It's possible you shouldn't trust what you read anyway, so maybe ask someone you trust to summarize all the anti covid vaccination data and talking points. What do you want me to do? Go into Google or youtube and find you one document or video to explain what has taken people dozens of videos to slowly compile and explain? I dont know you or like you even at this point, so I'm not investing the time. I have consistently sent them to friends, from nurses to doctors to oracle vps. All slowly convinced. Maybe if you had a friend like me you'd be slowly convinced too, or maybe your smarter than the doctors and PhD level engineers I know. Off the top of my head, look up the Dark Horse Podcast on youtube. That is the easiest lowest level stuff my mom can understand and enjoy. You can of course lookup more by listening to what they talk about and going deeper from there.

CyberDildonics 3y ago

I guess this is where you back peddle. Sounds like a clear example of natural immunity building due to the vaccinated crowd still transmitting anyway. You are basing this on nothing. You linked nothing, you have no evidence of any kind. You are hallucinating what you want to believe. Your second graph.. "cases OR deaths". Quality science. One of many graphs that I linked. You said: So unless you were in a high risk category for death from covid, was it necessary? Of course it was, you can tell by the overwhelming amount of evidence out there, some of it I linked here. https://images.jifo.co/2547186_1625656875106.png https://images.jifo.co/2547186_1625656875106.png There is a huge spectrum in the severity of an infection. Vaccines reduce the severity and duration of everything. Some people can test positive without symptoms. You would know this if you cared about being informed of reality. Let's see where you get your information.

talldatethrow 3y ago
You don't need a link to process and understand what I said about the 11% reduction for every dose. Think a little. Time passes between doses. Even your own study shows the doses only reduce transmission a little. This transmission are occuring as time goes by. Thus if you check later doses against earlier, yes you'll see a reduction in transmission. Because tons of people were spreading it. You could have done this study with chocolate chip cookies over time and said "yes, 6 months of eating cookies reduces covid transmission by 11%"
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  You said it didn't matter, the evidence is the graphs is crystal clear. As vaccines were rolled out there was a massive difference and the pandemic was muted for people who were vaccinated. You are ignoring evidence and hallucinating your own results while repeating your claims over and over. You don't need a link Yes you do. You can't explain why you think what you do. Think a little. Think a little less and leave it up to the experts. yes, 6 months of eating cookies reduces covid transmission by 11%" Over 6 months the difference in cases for vaccinated was a tiny fraction compared to unvaccinated. I showed you this already. How do you explain this? You haven't linked anything of your own, you haven't backed up any of your claims, you haven't explained why you think what you do and you haven't explained where you get your information. Vaccine denial is reality denial.
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    I'm not an encyclopedia of links. There are full time researchers with phds that go more in depth into why you're basically wrong about what you say. If you want to trust the summary generators you read of faulty logic, go for it. All you did was show me a prison study that can be refuted by basic logic, and a graph of labeling that made zero sense for anyone with a brain.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      I'm not an encyclopedia of links. You didn't link anything. There are full time researchers with phds that go more in depth into why you're basically wrong about what you say. Prove it. Show any evidence at all. If you want to trust the summary generators you read of faulty logic, go for it. I showed you multiple graphs. I linked you six different studies and graphs. You linked nothing. You have no evidence. You just keep repeating yourself and saying 'think about it bro'. Show some evidence, show some data, show some statistics, show some real information.
      - talldatethrow 3y ago
        By "I'm not an encyclopedia of links", I meant that I do not have a collection of links of past things I have read to pull from and provide to you. That is why I didn't give you a link. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. It's possible you shouldn't trust what you read anyway, so maybe ask someone you trust to summarize all the anti covid vaccination data and talking points. What do you want me to do? Go into Google or youtube and find you one document or video to explain what has taken people dozens of videos to slowly compile and explain? I dont know you or like you even at this point, so I'm not investing the time. I have consistently sent them to friends, from nurses to doctors to oracle vps. All slowly convinced. Maybe if you had a friend like me you'd be slowly convinced too, or maybe your smarter than the doctors and PhD level engineers I know. Off the top of my head, look up the Dark Horse Podcast on youtube. That is the easiest lowest level stuff my mom can understand and enjoy. You can of course lookup more by listening to what they talk about and going deeper from there.