hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 233 replies
  • Subscribers 18 subscribers
  • Views 6931 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Vaccine Conversation Today

DAN_M
Was in a production meeting waiting for it to start. People were talking about random things and of course "Covid" gets brought up. (please realize the irony that I am in a closed & unventilated room with these people..because they were willing to share their vaccine status they get to be maskless...because i refuse to share my status they assume i am not vaccinated and therefore force me to wear a mask).

Production Assistant: "Hey, did you all notice how its literally ONLY the engineers and programmers who don't want to get vaccinated? Why is that?"

Machinist: "They have critical thinking skills. Most of the people here (motioning to the room) do what they're told at work and in life".

Room went dead silent, a few people chuckled, am starting to get really turned off by people. =/ Was very uncomfortable sitting there as a "second class" employee with a mask on.
Parents
  • Ok guys, I've gotta be a bit logical here. because that's how I am. Logical.

    #1. The @georgiaparkerhilton image above is absolutely bonkers. If you actually understand how clinical trials work for FDA approval, the vaccines did complete three of four phases of clinical trials. The fourth phase is in fact to assess long term efficacy and reactions to the treatment, and yes it obviously does require baseline populations. However, think logically here guys. there's literally billions of people in over a hundred countries without a single effective vaccine doled out yet. Do you really believe that's the goal? hogwash. Anyone in the word can be a control subject, and we are talking about phase 4 clinical trials typically having sample sets in the tens -to- hundreds of thousands, not 46% of the population of the United States (that's over 150million people unvaccinated at this moment).

    #2: I can't disagree with the fact that there's a money trail. I also can't disagree that there's anterior motives to this whole COVID deal. What it absolutely is not, is political or separatist.
    --Ultimately, in my opinion, COVID is the elite's effort at population control. The politics, the medical companies, the talking heads in the media splitting the nation/world into classes it's all a natural response to the elite's effort to control population. They (the elites) believe population control is the only answer to preventing societal collapse, and ultimately the collapse of mankind. Less mouths to feed equals, lower carbon footprint, longer time this ball is going to sustain life.

    #3: Drug manufacturers obviously benefit financially from this, but they aren't producing a vaccine for a virus, just for 'ish and giggles'. Nor are they doing it with nefarious reasons. They are legitimately attempting to save lives. Which I mean, hard numbers reported globally, do not lie. The vaccines (generic term here, for any treatments being produced and distributed by any country or manufacturer WORLDWIDE) are saving lives. Any clinical and proven effective treatment should be considered to save your life and the lives of those whom you love. Now, if you go and start eating horse-doses of ivermectin, injecting or consuming bleach, or any other of these crackpot unproven methods... That's just another contribution to the elite's agenda, but simply by means of 'natural selection' (you're so dumb you kill/critically injure yourself).

    I'm sure my perspective is not in alignment with many agendas and societal norms. IDGAF. My perspective is my own, and a result of my own extensive observing, and fact checking. You don't like it? Cool, I respect you and your perspectives as well. But please don't be a parrot/sheeple by pushing separatist, political, or patently false information.

    #1. While I agree with you on the control group being crazy... I don't believe that you can compare people from the opposite side of the world from yourself and call them the control group. Even within the united states there are illnesses and ailments that effect people of different ethnicity and illness from geographical location as well. It would be a sloppy control group scientifically.

    #2. I agree. I hate saying I agree because I feel crazy saying it but I agree.

    #3. While I agree that they are trying to save lives with the vaccine I believe they are misrepresenting the necessity of a vaccine and undervaluing the actual need for prescription drugs prescribed by a doctor. If you go to front line doctors . org you can be prescribed proven effective drugs that diminish hospitalizations by 80%. If they were prescribed for everyone who is diagnosed with covid this would be an entirely different "pandimic"
  • in reply to cheesiechanman
    your numbers for the control group are correct as far as number of people yes. but.... in science what percentage should a control group be. As the control group decreases the level of uncertainty increases. Since we are all programmers here lets use parts for example. Lets say you make a plastic part out of X material. and you make 1,000,000 parts with that material. Now you change the material and make 9,000,000 parts with material Y. All of this over a 10 year period.

    The material X parts you have 4-5 features that are out of spec 5% of the time. Now in the material Y parts 15% of the parts are OOT for the same features. With what level of uncertainty can you blame the additional OOT conditions on the Y material over a 10 year span? So to claim that diminishing the size of the control group doesn't matter based on the amount of people is bonkers. It could be coincidence. It could be process changes. It could be cooling time. it could be handling. but you couldn't blame it 100% or even 60% on the material. What level of uncertainty are you willing to have to place blame on the material alone? This is the idea behind the image above. The smaller the control group gets as a base % of the population the greater the uncertainty in finding the root cause.

    For the #3 comment. You doubled down on the vaccine but didn't address the at home care. If you go to the doctor for strep throat youre sent home with medication. If you have pneumonia you're given medication. If you have cancer your given medication. But if you have C19 its good luck... hope you survive and don't have to go to the hospital. There are no countermeasures. its a huge oversight. Many doctors have been able to treat covid at a 80% reduction in hospitalizations with current prescriptions. I'm not saying the vaccine dont reduce hospitalizations. I'm saying there are other methods that aren't even being considered. to that I ask why?

    And the last thing you said about me. Read the headline of the article again. Keeping them out of the hospital. Not keeping them from getting/spreading Covid. Regardless of if I have the jab or not I would still carry covid and give it to said individual. The vaccine protects YOU. not others around you. It doesn't reduce transmission. All the vaccine does is diminish my symptoms. So regardless of what I do that person would die either way.
Reply
  • in reply to cheesiechanman
    your numbers for the control group are correct as far as number of people yes. but.... in science what percentage should a control group be. As the control group decreases the level of uncertainty increases. Since we are all programmers here lets use parts for example. Lets say you make a plastic part out of X material. and you make 1,000,000 parts with that material. Now you change the material and make 9,000,000 parts with material Y. All of this over a 10 year period.

    The material X parts you have 4-5 features that are out of spec 5% of the time. Now in the material Y parts 15% of the parts are OOT for the same features. With what level of uncertainty can you blame the additional OOT conditions on the Y material over a 10 year span? So to claim that diminishing the size of the control group doesn't matter based on the amount of people is bonkers. It could be coincidence. It could be process changes. It could be cooling time. it could be handling. but you couldn't blame it 100% or even 60% on the material. What level of uncertainty are you willing to have to place blame on the material alone? This is the idea behind the image above. The smaller the control group gets as a base % of the population the greater the uncertainty in finding the root cause.

    For the #3 comment. You doubled down on the vaccine but didn't address the at home care. If you go to the doctor for strep throat youre sent home with medication. If you have pneumonia you're given medication. If you have cancer your given medication. But if you have C19 its good luck... hope you survive and don't have to go to the hospital. There are no countermeasures. its a huge oversight. Many doctors have been able to treat covid at a 80% reduction in hospitalizations with current prescriptions. I'm not saying the vaccine dont reduce hospitalizations. I'm saying there are other methods that aren't even being considered. to that I ask why?

    And the last thing you said about me. Read the headline of the article again. Keeping them out of the hospital. Not keeping them from getting/spreading Covid. Regardless of if I have the jab or not I would still carry covid and give it to said individual. The vaccine protects YOU. not others around you. It doesn't reduce transmission. All the vaccine does is diminish my symptoms. So regardless of what I do that person would die either way.
Children
No Data
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement