Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm

I'll forgo comment on the highly subjective nature of your qualifications in favor of addressing a flaw in your "math".

My qualifications to do WHAT, precisely? Possess body autonomy?
Follow a protocol from peer reviewed studies?
Do my personal risk assessment personally?

Please - tell the board what qualifications you are snarking about - or it's just facile snarking.

Also, if you are going to put quotes around math, challenge the math. A general complaint about inputs isn't a challenge, It's a hail mary. A CHALLENGE would proffer a superior input. You're just trying to LOOK like you objected, it seems to me.

Do better.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm

A simple 1 in 5 has subsequent issues assumes that through the history of the study, means and variances remained constant.

OR, it is a rough number, settled on for convenience, and could be off by 50% in either direction and still be useful for the purpose to which it was put in my OP.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm

If the study covers more than 20 years, that may be unwarranted.

Pretty sure I made the point that it was a ten year study.

But the broader point - that vaxing carries risks, the same as not vaxing - has been elliptically sustained. 

I thank you for that.