Today 1:31 am
Mathematical modeling comparing actual outcomes against a hypothetical scenario of no vaccination confirms that broad coverage significantly reduced population-level mortality rates. In summary, there will be interpretation, and leading experts are making the conclusion. It sounds like a HE said She said situation.Cannonpointer » Yesterday, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑ Both of your papers - the second of which is not even credited to its authors - are based entirely on hypotheticals. I have seen - and published on this board in the vaccine thread - papers which reach an opposite conclusion and are NOT published as editorials.
You argument that wearing a mask is good for your health is belied by your own personal activities. You have not placed any extra filtration on your car's exhaust - nor will you, because common sense tells you if you **** with your car's ability to exhale, you will have to pay the mechanic.
Likewise, you do not wear a mask, for the same reason. You don't have the bald-faced gall to deny that only virtue-signaling lesbians are still wearing masks.
I am sticking to the the "saved lives" ,as we certainly could have had a lot more dead people. COVID‐19 vaccines appear to be very effective.
It's really about the inhale and exhale. You can take a lesson, here: https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses ... masks.html
yeah you 
--->Read me : )
Yer…. Entertaining and I make you
. Look at you chasing me like a little puppy begging his master for attention. I should piss on the floor, rub your nose in it.
Beekeeper » Who is Eugene Stoner??
--->Read me : ) Yer…. Entertaining and I make you
. Look at you chasing me like a little puppy begging his master for attention. I should piss on the floor, rub your nose in it.Beekeeper » Who is Eugene Stoner??