I continually see memes quoting statistics that claim to show the ineffectiveness of vaccines.
Anybody with even middle school level math competency should be able to see through the misrepresentation of these statistics.
A recent example stated that 85.7% of deaths over a particular week in Scotland were vaccinated people. The conclusion drawn was that the vaccines don't work because the vast majority of people dying were vaccinated.
What was left out in the post was that 94% of Scotland has received at least 1 dose and 74% has received 3 doses. That leaves only less than 6% of the population unvaxxed accounting for 12% of the deaths. This data suggests (suggests, doesn't prove anything), just the opposite of the conclusion drawn.
Misuse of statistics makes people look either stupid or dishonest. If you see something posted like this, you should immediately question your source. Anybody passing off this kind of stuff isn't vetting their sources or their numbers either through actual intent to mislead or sheer stupidity. Either way, the source cannot be trusted. Trusting such a source is just allowing yourself to be duped (which makes you a dupe) or a liar yourself.
Hold yourself to higher standards of integrity, please, everybody. It doesn't help anybody to lie about facts or pass on lies about facts.
I don't trust "experts" i trust experts
You mean you don't trust the actual experts who have studied their subjects for nearly a decade just to earn their PhDs then have secured prestigious research positions and publish their work in prestigious research journals where other "experts" working at other prestigious research institutions review their work prior to publication and either reject it or mark corrections to be made before the research is published in said presitigious journal?
No, your experts publish on blogs on the internet or made up anti-vax journals that are not held in high regard by the scientific community and are not reviewed by people who earned their PhDs after nearly a decade of higher education and do not work at prestigious research institutions. Those are your experts.
It's literally irrational. If I'm wrong, cite one of your experts. Cite yourself and provide the "math" you did on the effectiveness of vaccines. Don't give me studies based on VAERS, I have demonstrated already how and why using that data to make causal links between "vaccine injuries" and vaccines is entirely spurious and outright dishonest. So if your number are based on VAERS, be prepared to defend why you are using a database that itself says shouldn't be used for that purpose.
You keep saying I'm wrong and that all this research in all these prestigious scientific journals is wrong, but you have yet to cite a single study or even a single fact to support your position.
I don't trust the experts the TV tells me to trust, only trust good research. Fo you have any or are you still relying upon personal attacks and dogma?
I have literally cited dozens of studies all that are "good research."
I don't think you are any kind of judge of what "good research" is when you defend using VAERS for your "math" on the effectiveness of COVID vaccines.
This isn't dogma. This isn't personal attacks. I am not attacking YOU, I am attacking your foolish arguments. That isn't a personal attack. That is discourse. Am I harsh? Yes! I have to put up with ridiculous arguments like not accepting that COVID variants exist or that using VAERS data is legitimate research or that scientific studies published in the most prestigious medical journals on Earth aren't "good research."
You are all defending the right to lie to people. That's all you are doing. You don't trust ACTUAL science but you do trust your own "experts" (who you won't cite) who make up shit on the internet. Believe me, I have had the patience of Job reading and responding to these absolutely bonkers replies. If you took any biology course at any college or university and tried to make any of these arguments, you would be laughed out of the lecture hall.
"Excuse me, Professor, but I have not accepted the construct of COVID variants."
Literally. It's laughable, then you are hurt and think I am personally attacking you because I call you out on absolute BULLSHIT that you post on here. I mean it's ludicrous. I mean, you'd be laughed out of HIGH SCHOOL classrooms. But here, where we are supposed to be adults who can read and critically examine sources and think for ourselves, I'm supposed to be patient with absolute bonkers arguments.
I have been called all sorts of names. vax whore, being the latest. I don't cry about personal attacks. If someone only makes personal attacks I completely disregard what they have to say (for example @DavidColeIntrepid, I don't know how to tag people). But any substance, with insults or not, I will respond to as long as I have time.
"u/name" to tag
Look, the research has to be related. Citing stuff for other viruses really is not helpful unless you're establishing background which we are past. Show me a way to surveil safety that is more accurate than VAERS or else it's a mute point since VAERS data clearly deconstructs the safety argument. Absolute risk is less than 0.1%. I'm not interested in evaluating relative risk unless you are willing to do time series analysis.
Also, I'd say you are quite disrespectful so unless that changes I'm not willing to debate with you. I think your sources are ridiculous but I continue to offer a resolution without attacking you.
🤦♂️ see you're not interested in understanding, you're interested in winning