Vaccinations and health ... for or against?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Since other factors are involved, you cannot infer anything at all. But as long as you do not understand this point, it will be a dialogue of the deaf.

And until you understand that saying that or nothing is the same, a deaf dialogue will be an understatement for you.
Stroke stronger than the WHO World Health Statistics Directory .... in soliloquy.

[Janic]

GuyGadeboisLeRetour »12/04/21, 12:27

ABC2019 wrote:
Since other factors are involved, you cannot infer anything at all. But as long as you do not understand this point, it will be a dialogue of the deaf.

And until you understand that saying that or nothing is the same, a deaf dialogue will be an understatement for you.
ABC stronger than the WHO World Health Statistics Yearbook .... in soliloquy.

He doesn't give a damn about statistics from the WHO or elsewhere, his ONLY goal is to fuck shit everywhere; even with 99.9% decrease without vaccines, therefore "to the extent that other factors are involved,"precisely, its 0.25% vaccine has no impact on the results. And it claims to be an es-specialist in statistics. ah, the puppet!

[ABC2019]

[
He doesn't give a damn about statistics from the WHO or elsewhere

well of course that if, it's not me who says that the statistics who cares, it's you! I'm just telling you that we cannot simply interpret them when several factors are different (for example that in the years you quote, the French population was much more agricultural than the English, with more risk of catching tetanus ).

, its ONLY goal is to fuck shit everywhere; even with 99.9% decrease without vaccines, therefore "to the extent that other factors are involved,"precisely, its 0.25% vaccine has no impact on the results. And it claims to be an es-specialist in statistics.

I would like to be sure that you know how to manipulate the statistics precisely:, for you if hygiene measures reduce mortality by reducing it to 10% of the old rate, and then that the vaccination brings it back to 0,1% of the old rate, what is the most efficient?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

THE VOID

We don't care what you say. It is a question of possibly commenting on the last statistics of the WHO produced by Janic and not of feeding your phony fantasies only there to rot a thread, monopolize the attention on your navel and undergo your manipulations.

[izentrop]

I don't know if it was said

Opening of vaccination to over 55s and to certain teachers, extension of the time between the administration of the two doses, arrival of the new Johnson & Johnson vaccine. https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/04/11/vac ... 481695.php

and for those in a hurry https://vitemadose.covidtracker.fr/

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I don't know if it was said

Opening of vaccination to over 55s and to certain teachers, extension of the time between the administration of the two doses, arrival of the new Johnson & Johnson vaccine. https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/04/11/vac ... 481695.php

and for those in a hurry https://vitemadose.covidtracker.fr/

You got the wrong topic (did you do it on purpose?):
health-pollution-prevention / the-advances-of-the-fight-against-coronavis-t16395-1400.html

[izentrop]

You're right

[ABC2019]

THE VOID

We don't care what you say. It is a question of possibly commenting on the last statistics of the WHO produced by Janic and not of feeding your phony fantasies only there to rot a thread, monopolize the attention on your navel and undergo your manipulations.

in good French = to give a reasonable opinion on unreasonable remarks.

But I also don't expect an Islamic fundamentalist to be very happy if you start to question your beliefs!

[Janic]

ABC2019 »12/04/21, 12:56
I'm just telling you that we cannot simply interpret them when several factors are different (for example that in the years you quote, the French population was much more agricultural than the English, with more risk of catching tetanus ).

and the big bundle of extra bullshit. Start by consulting the tables and tetanus rates according to age. The most affected are babies before a year (not much now) and the elderly from 60 years old in the 1960s. Nothing to do with agriculture.

, its ONLY goal is to fuck shit everywhere; even with 99.9% decrease without vaccines, therefore "insofar as other factors intervene," precisely, its 0.25% vaccine has no effect on the results. And it claims to be an es-specialist in statistics.

I would like to be sure that you know how to handle statistics precisely:

, in any case you do not know, obviously, not to decipher them

for you

not for me, if 2 + 2 is 4 I have nothing to do with it! I have nothing to do with it, bis!

hygiene measures reduce mortality by reducing it to 10% of the old rate, and then that vaccination brings it down to 0,1% of the old rate, what is the most effective?

cat porridge as usual. The numbers show decreases greater than 95% and closer to 99%, not 90%, that's your fantasy. So it remains for the vaccines to demonstrate that they could have had any action on the 0.25% their remainder, which has never been demonstrated with figures in hand.

[Janic]

So we see the polio, which is also scary, and the manipulation of figures by truncated statistics.

This first curve shows the regular descending line (before the polio vaccination) and its explosion when the diphtheria toxoid is introduced and then descends again.

The second shows the descending curve also specific to the polio vaccine.
During the pre-vaccination period and the vaccination period in England always
Another quantitative analysis shows that in the pre-vaccination period we go from
8.4% of fatal cases in 1950 with 72% of cases of paralysis,
With 4.2% of fatal cases and 53.6% of paralysis in 1956
To switch to the vaccination period at
5.3% of fatal cases and 65.7% of paralysis in 1957
A16.6% fatal cases and 72.2% paralysis in 1962

In France Mr PONIATOWSKY declares:
"The beginning of the vaccination is in 1957 year during which 4.109 cases including 304 deaths had been recorded: in 1960 a clear decrease in the endemic was noted 1.663 cases including 149 deaths
1963: 773 cases including 74 deaths
1966: 221 cases including 36 deaths
1969: 68 cases including 15 deaths
1972: 37 cases including 2 deaths
All of these figures are correct and do give an impression of the effectiveness of the vaccination! Typical example of manipulation because in reality the statistical curve was this one,

but by "forgetting" - (what blunder) that in 1956 the number of cases was THAT of 1206 cases and as shown by this curve in 1958 it had fallen back to 1631 cases, but only to rise immediately to 2.259 in 1959.

However, the improvement, as we now know, owed nothing to the vaccine but to the improvement of the sanitary sewer and water supply networks which no longer interfere since the contamination is made by transmission of the microbe through the faeces.

The reality is this:

Or this one!