Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Jeff Gilchrist (jeffgilchrist@mstdn.science)'s status on Monday, 18-Dec-2023 12:47:44 JST Jeff Gilchrist

   It is estimated that currently 1 in 13 people are infected in Ontario which means there is a 55% chance at least one person in your group of 10 is infected. This jumps to a 70% chance in groups of 15, 86.5% chance with 25 people and 98% chance at that office Christmas party of 50 people.

   Estimate from ( https://covid19resources.ca/covid-hazard-index/ ) and calculator available at ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qokCvvi6oRYRCKtrZuyeUmb5mt4LC9o8nKHLKoAUVAY/edit?usp=sharing ). 🧵 1/

2. Embed this notice
   Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🦝🐙🇱🇧🧯 (jeffcliff@shitposter.club)'s status on Wednesday, 09-Aug-2023 05:09:38 JST Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🦝🐙🇱🇧🧯

   in reply to
   > And stop with the "base level" shit. These are done per capita, per 100,000.
   
   No, they aren't.
   
   > The fact that you can even say this and yet still defend getting the vaccine is literally shocking to me
   ...
   > It's clearly not safe and could potentially kill you outright.
   ...
   > why the fuck would you promote this vaccine?
   
   WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC WHERE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE DYING AND A BILLIONS ARE AT IMMEDIATE RISK OF GETTING PERMANENT DAMAGE TO THEIR INTERNAL ORGANS. No shit there's going to be 1-in-1000000 or 1-in-100000000 events with a vaccine that's had 10000000000 doses given. The context of that risk must be compared with the much, much higher risk of covid itself and more importantly: the risks going forward, of repeat infection which can be much, much higher than one particular infection.
   
   >a couple people literally fainted on live tv, how many do you think in the real world are fainting or having adverse affects?
   
   TV is fake and is irrelevant.
   
   > if it was truly negligible numbers of people, we wouldn't have seen this on live tv
   
   Sure we would. We have a hyper polarized world full of antivaxxers with video cameras and blogs. We will likely see *every* such case.
   
   > at all; just like with every other vaccine in the past.
   
   No, it wouldn't be.
   
   >> That isn't even true, see above.
   >I did see above, and it is true.
   ...
   > Right, so your study doesn't prove what you're trying to say it proves.
   
   Yes it does. Cytokine storms were a documented phenomenon that was immediately associated with covid as soon as there was enough cases for doctors to observe what was actually going on in them, long before the vaccines existed. That was what I was trying to say it proved, and that was what was shown.
   
   > I'd like to see you cite 1 study in this thread that shows that covid itself (meaning people who never got the vaccine) developed AIDS.
   > how ADE and AIDS differ
   > 1) it is and you haven't proved otherwise
   > 2) it isn't and you haven't proved otherwise
   >, and that natural immunity is something like x20 more effective.
   
   Again: this is not the thread for that, go to the other thread if you want to get into the immune system this thread will get too crazy if we stray too far from heart problems.
   
   > not really, mainstream news is just as BS if not moreso.
   
   Agreed. And it, by and large, agrees with you.
   
   > 3) we've seen tons of evidence and scientists and government officials admitting in the past year that the vaccine doesn't significantly prevent infection or reduce transmission
   
   Then they are wrong. Canada's covid hazard index data shows otherwise. https://covid19resources.ca/covid-hazard-index/
   
   > No this doesn't follow. If you can ignore state agencies and their data,
   
   Since those 'stage agencies' were run under the Trump administration, and GOP has a history of controlling what state agencies say based on the dictates of policy set above i'd say that was valid.
   
   > then you can't trust anyone with their data.
   
   The existence of bad data doesn't make good data not exist.
   
   > Scientists and researchers need funding and financial backing to even have jobs and most of the time that funding comes from multi billion dollar companies, like Pfizer, so there's obviously a conflict of interest there.
   
   Again: this is a blanket statement that isnt' even accurate. In canada many researchers are funded by both the federal and provincial governments and more importantly * the healthcare system * that is arms-reach independent of both corporations and the government.
   
   > Of course the CDC got a lot wrong, they lied about most things, like most studies did; this is equally as true of anything that you cite.
   
   No, it isn't equally true.
   
   > then you're out of your mind if you think that other countries and agencies aren't doing the same.
   
   Some are, some aren't. America is uniquely a dishonest culture
   
   > I already addressed this, that study doesn't tell me whether those
   people were vaccinated or not
   
   In mid 2020, before the vaccines existed.
   
   >. you already admitted that this study does not address this.
   
   I was explaining why the first study I linked was the one I chose to link to.
3. Embed this notice
   Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🦝🐙🇱🇧🧯 (jeffcliff@shitposter.club)'s status on Monday, 03-Jul-2023 23:14:10 JST Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🦝🐙🇱🇧🧯

   in reply to
   Congratulations on reaching the 30-39 bracket of covid risk. Please update your priors for serious damage accordingly.
   
   ie you're now a 1-in-2070 to 1-in-5596 risk of hospitalization, rather than a 1-in-22153 risk, depending on your vaccination status and comorbidities (which if you don't have any, you might start picking them up soon)
   
   https://covid19resources.ca/covid-hazard-index/