Christophe wrote:There are more than 2% of patients since it is 20% unless Klein talks about 2% at the hospital
This is where S Trotta lacks judgment. Or he does it knowingly to deceive his world.
Christophe wrote:There are more than 2% of patients since it is 20% unless Klein talks about 2% at the hospital
pedrodelavega wrote:Christophe wrote:There are more than 2% of patients since it is 20% unless Klein talks about 2% at the hospital
This is where S Trotta lacks judgment. Or he does it knowingly to deceive his world.
except on the mathematical level, it does not make much difference on the level of an entire nation if the method used is not good!Apart from that, even in its calculation, we can still say that the test is useful for something, as long as it is done, it is better to confine 50 people including 49 by mistake than to confine 1000 people including 999 by mistake!
Janic wrote:except on the mathematical level, it does not make much difference on the level of an entire nation if the method used is not good!Apart from that, even in its calculation, we can still say that the test is useful for something, as long as it is done, it is better to confine 50 people including 49 by mistake than to confine 1000 people including 999 by mistake!
This is where the shoe pinches! No containment, as practiced, can prevent a virus free to spread by multiple means, the air of which is quite simply like wanting to stop a tsunami with an umbrella .I'm just saying that even with 2% false positives, the method would still be justified because it still leads not to confine everyone, even if some would be confined by mistake, it's still better than to confine everyone . And those confined by mistake may be saved from future contamination!
Janic wrote:This is where the shoe pinches! No containment, as practiced, can prevent a virus free to spread by multiple means, the air of which is quite simply like wanting to stop a tsunami with an umbrella .I'm just saying that even with 2% false positives, the method would still be justified because it still leads not to confine everyone, even if some would be confined by mistake, it's still better than to confine everyone . And those confined by mistake may be saved from future contamination!
This does not question their punctual efficiency! If you go out with an umbrella you get less wet than without. It is therefore only minimal one-off protection but without any in-depth effect since all the fragile contaminants a little earlier or a little later will have to pass through it to obtain sufficient immunity or pass through it, it is the law of natural selection. So the current measures only extend the inevitable in length, they do not stop it, and will not stop it! Even with their pseudo vaccine, none have ever worked in history and this from Jenner. It's just intended to make the frightened, anxious population believe, that in addition, that this miraculous product will put an end to their fears and anxieties. But if they believe in it like all placebos: why not!well if the confinements had an almost immediate effect on stopping the epidemic. That they are difficult to support socially is another problem, but you cannot deny their effectiveness.
Janic wrote:This does not question their punctual efficiency! If you go out with an umbrella you get less wet than without. It is therefore only minimal one-off protection but without any in-depth effect since all the fragile contaminants a little earlier or a little later will have to pass through it to obtain sufficient immunity or pass through it, it is the law of natural selection. So the current measures only extend the inevitable in length, they do not stop it, and will not stop it! Even with their pseudo vaccine, none have ever worked in history and this from Jenner. It's just intended to make the frightened, anxious population believe, that in addition, that this miraculous product will put an end to their fears and anxieties. But if they believe in it like all placebos: why not!well if the confinements had an almost immediate effect on stopping the epidemic. That they are difficult to support socially is another problem, but you cannot deny their effectiveness.
pedrodelavega wrote:Christophe wrote:There are more than 2% of patients since it is 20% unless Klein talks about 2% at the hospital
This is where S Trotta lacks judgment. Or he does it knowingly to deceive his world.
Christophe wrote:pedrodelavega wrote:Christophe wrote:There are more than 2% of patients since it is 20% unless Klein talks about 2% at the hospital
This is where S Trotta lacks judgment. Or he does it knowingly to deceive his world.
Is it the author of the statements or the reporter most at fault?
Klein lost 10 Karma points with this deceptive speech ...
Back to "Science and Technology"
Users browsing this forum : sicetaitsimple and 108 guests