who here still believes the bat soup story ?

[cropgrower]

who here still believes the story that this mess the last two years all started because sombody in wuhan had a bowl of bat soup ? i had lots of questions right from the start , and still have

[Taiga]

Yeah, that’s a hard no

[blackjack]

Time will tell cropgrower ….hard to fathom how pathetic the media’s response was.

[cropgrower]

Time will tell cropgrower ….hard to fathom how pathetic the media’s response was.

even harder to fathom how they still have not discovered how it started 🤔

[furrowtickler]

even harder to fathom how they still have not discovered how it started 🤔

They know , its called gain of function research and those that funded it

[Jordy2323]

Good thing they invented something "safe and effective" to combat their homemade virus...

[cropgrower]

i have always watched the trends in europe ,we are a few months behind here

[cropgrower]

They know , its called gain of function research and those that funded it

yes why investigate when they allready know how it all happened

[dmlfarmer]

jordy


If the population size of both vaxed and unvaxed were the same, the charts would be worth considering.

This chart, which is based on per hospitalizations per 100,000 is comparing apples to apples and you can clearly see vaccines work.

[Jordy2323]

In MB, the fully vaxxed (2 doses) account for equal/or higher cases, hospitalizations, ICU and deaths than their per capita.

So that would be some negative efficacy.

[cropgrower]

dml whats your opinion on how it all started ? if people knew the truth every choice gets a lot simpler , eg for me man made virus no 💉, natural virus mabe

[dmlfarmer]

In MB, the fully vaxxed (2 doses) account for equal/or higher cases, hospitalizations, ICU and deaths than their per capita.

So that would be some negative efficacy.

No, not negative efficacy, bad spin. Had you put up the next chart in the series of charts on the manitoba website it would have shown there is no negative efficacy. However, that next chart does not support your claim therefore you ignored it. So let me put it up for you.

[dmlfarmer]

dml whats your opinion on how it all started ? if people knew the truth every choice gets a lot simpler , eg for me man made virus no 💉, natural virus mabe

My opinion is just that, an opinion as there is no way to definitively prove or disprove yet. And anyone claiming to know the "truth" is either lying or an idiot. It may have sprung from the isolated cave in China where 4 miners died months earlier while cleaning bat crap. It may have been transported by followup studies of these deaths and bat crap to Wuhan and escaped the lab there. (at this time I think this is the most credible HYPOTHESIS) It may have been an existing corona virus that was being studied in Wuhan and mutated there and escaped the lab. It is possible, though less likely to have been spread from a fresh market. There are reports that 152 cases are linked to one stall, but did that stall start it or did a single person at that stall that caught it somewhere else, spread it? I have been to the fresh markets in China and given the numbers of people passing through and handling foods at stalls it is conceivable that single person could easily infect many with a communicable disease. IMHO I do not think it was created for the purpose of deliberate infection of humans or more stringent care would have been taken to make sure it did not escape; especially to countrymen of where it was created.

[Jordy2323]

No, not negative efficacy, bad spin. Had you put up the next chart in the series of charts on the manitoba website it would have shown there is no negative efficacy. However, that next chart does not support your claim therefore you ignored it. So let me put it up for you.

There is no spin. The double vaxxed (Fully vaxxed) have covid stats disproportionate to their population.

Right there in the data.

[dmlfarmer]

There is no spin. The double vaxxed (Fully vaxxed) have covid stats disproportionate to their population.

Right there in the data.

Sorry Jordy, you are wrong. Your argument reminds me of the problem A&W ran into when they introduced the 1/3 lb burger to compete with the quarter pounder at McDonalds. Even though same price, and many would argue the A&W burger tasted better, people did not buy the A&W burger because they thought a 1/3 lb burger was smaller than a quarter lb burger.

just like the math challenged who compare 1/3and 1/4and think since 3 is less than 4 then 1/3 must be smaller than 1/4, you are only comparing the numerators of the fractions.
In this case, in calculating the ratios and thereby the risk, the denominators are not the same for vaccination status. You have to first calculate the number of people in each group to determine the risk fractions. That is not done in the two charts provided. However you can calculate it from the charts. And if you do that you will find that cases, hospitalizations, and deaths the highest risk is 1 shot, then 0 shots, then 2 shots, and then3 shots. The one shot higher risk may be partially explained by the low number of people who only got one shot. This calculation is confirmed by the chart which you ignored, but which I posted. As well, this reflects the same findings as the CDC charts I posted.