The hospital conglomerate I worked for had crazy equations determining Vax status. None of the numbers given make any sense to a sane person. They fiddled with the equations to suit themselves and halfway through just stopped asking about Vax status and made assumptions.
We know very little, honestly. There were zero flu cases for two years, but the Covid cases matched average annual flu cases. Almost no one in any age group died of the sickness—they died of ventilators and the drugs on which they were put. It’s impossible to say how many were hospitalized for it (or not) in the first place, because hospitals got paid for every claimed positive case.
Moreover, we don’t even know if the damn thing was real, given the 1:1 swap for the flu.
a) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"
b) what if everyone (perceiving) knows everything (perceivable), hence having the opportunity to grow comprehension through adaptation?
c) what if ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) tempts one to comprehend only a "little" throughout ones willing ignorance?
d) what if suggested "we" (plural) tempts perceivable "one" (singular) to ignore self (partial within whole)?
WE the people; WE are the world; WE will rock you; WE are off to see the wizard; WE don't live here no more; WE are all made of stars; WE ain't got nothing yet; WE can work it out; WE better talk this over; WE are not gonna take it; WE belong together; WE built this city; WE told you so; WE love because he first loved us etc.
Why do the few keep suggesting "WE" in the name of (e nomine) the many? Reconsider..."hey fellow white people..." in regard to that.
I can tell youve never taken a statistics class before ^^. Its rather easy to manipulate the equations to get the end goal you want.
Thats why one of the first things you learn is that statistics cant really tell you anything definitively, its only when its taken in context and fully understood that it provides any real useful data.
I dont think thats happening in this case when they hide numbers and fudge definitions.
Research your country’s official definition of ‘vaccinated’ vs ‘unvaccinated’.
Were the hospitals filled with people who never had a vaccine? Or were the filled with people classed as ‘unvaccinated’?
Were the hospitals even filled at all?
Research your country’s official definition of ‘with covid’ vs ‘from covid’.
Reconcile.
Here, in the UK, if you’d had 2 doses of the vax, then crashed your motorbike into a tree a week after the second dose, you would be recorded as an unvaccinated covid hospitalisation/death.
Also, here in the UK, the hospitals were far from overwhelmed despite what our media told us. Saw this with my own eyes.
Info, stats, and news reports on deaths are on both sides
Your consent (belief or disbelief) to suggested information; statistics and news reports shapes both sides of the conflict of reason (belief vs disbelief), which the few then rebranded into vaxxed vs unvaxxed.
I assume they're accurate...
a) ASSU'ME, verb - "to take or take upon one. If differs from receive, in not implying an offer to give."...your assumptions contradict your consent to receive suggested information.
b) to take upon self implies as free will of choice; while consenting to the suggestions of others represents ignoring ones free will of choice for the suggested choices by others.
Only those who suggest can define, redefine and contradict the meaning thereof at will and they utilizes ones consent to the suggested as the power to do so. Ones assumptions afterwards have no power of the suggested, yet corrupt oneself more and more, while reasoning with others.
c) AC'CURATE, adjective -"free from failure"...being free will of choice implies within (life) fall (inception towards death). Failing grows choice.
it depends if the stats can be trusted
Consenting to suggested statistics places one in dependence to the one suggesting, hence becoming a trustee of the one suggesting. The statistics represent the distraction from that, hence tempting one to put ones trust in them, while ignoring to be a trustee of the ones suggesting them.
come to the conclusion
a) introduction (inception) inclusion (life) conclusion (death)
b) the few suggest that reasoning (want vs not want; belief vs disbelief; true vs false; agreement vs disagreement etc.) can be concluded, but it will always result in even more conflicts of reason...because nature keeps moving.
Who says there were? Why would you believe there were?
The hospital conglomerate I worked for had crazy equations determining Vax status. None of the numbers given make any sense to a sane person. They fiddled with the equations to suit themselves and halfway through just stopped asking about Vax status and made assumptions.
We know very little, honestly. There were zero flu cases for two years, but the Covid cases matched average annual flu cases. Almost no one in any age group died of the sickness—they died of ventilators and the drugs on which they were put. It’s impossible to say how many were hospitalized for it (or not) in the first place, because hospitals got paid for every claimed positive case.
Moreover, we don’t even know if the damn thing was real, given the 1:1 swap for the flu.
Yeah we do know that at least some hospitals stopped giving the vaxxed the death protocols while continuing to push them on the uninjected
because Influenza is not diagnosed, it is estimated from other factors
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19797736/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19453440/
and Canada
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080481
a) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"
b) what if everyone (perceiving) knows everything (perceivable), hence having the opportunity to grow comprehension through adaptation?
c) what if ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) tempts one to comprehend only a "little" throughout ones willing ignorance?
d) what if suggested "we" (plural) tempts perceivable "one" (singular) to ignore self (partial within whole)?
WE the people; WE are the world; WE will rock you; WE are off to see the wizard; WE don't live here no more; WE are all made of stars; WE ain't got nothing yet; WE can work it out; WE better talk this over; WE are not gonna take it; WE belong together; WE built this city; WE told you so; WE love because he first loved us etc.
Why do the few keep suggesting "WE" in the name of (e nomine) the many? Reconsider..."hey fellow white people..." in regard to that.
I can tell youve never taken a statistics class before ^^. Its rather easy to manipulate the equations to get the end goal you want.
Thats why one of the first things you learn is that statistics cant really tell you anything definitively, its only when its taken in context and fully understood that it provides any real useful data.
I dont think thats happening in this case when they hide numbers and fudge definitions.
Research your country’s official definition of ‘vaccinated’ vs ‘unvaccinated’.
Were the hospitals filled with people who never had a vaccine? Or were the filled with people classed as ‘unvaccinated’?
Were the hospitals even filled at all?
Research your country’s official definition of ‘with covid’ vs ‘from covid’.
Reconcile.
Here, in the UK, if you’d had 2 doses of the vax, then crashed your motorbike into a tree a week after the second dose, you would be recorded as an unvaccinated covid hospitalisation/death.
Also, here in the UK, the hospitals were far from overwhelmed despite what our media told us. Saw this with my own eyes.
Your consent (belief or disbelief) to suggested information; statistics and news reports shapes both sides of the conflict of reason (belief vs disbelief), which the few then rebranded into vaxxed vs unvaxxed.
a) ASSU'ME, verb - "to take or take upon one. If differs from receive, in not implying an offer to give."...your assumptions contradict your consent to receive suggested information.
b) to take upon self implies as free will of choice; while consenting to the suggestions of others represents ignoring ones free will of choice for the suggested choices by others.
Only those who suggest can define, redefine and contradict the meaning thereof at will and they utilizes ones consent to the suggested as the power to do so. Ones assumptions afterwards have no power of the suggested, yet corrupt oneself more and more, while reasoning with others.
c) AC'CURATE, adjective -"free from failure"...being free will of choice implies within (life) fall (inception towards death). Failing grows choice.
Consenting to suggested statistics places one in dependence to the one suggesting, hence becoming a trustee of the one suggesting. The statistics represent the distraction from that, hence tempting one to put ones trust in them, while ignoring to be a trustee of the ones suggesting them.
a) introduction (inception) inclusion (life) conclusion (death)
b) the few suggest that reasoning (want vs not want; belief vs disbelief; true vs false; agreement vs disagreement etc.) can be concluded, but it will always result in even more conflicts of reason...because nature keeps moving.