State trooper who told off Inslee over vaccine mandate dies from COVID

Like Arizona Senate Republicans are now magically Democrats...

 

Just noticed this in your post:

I didn't say anything about peer-reviewed data.

I said "Oh, you mean the non peer-reviewed study"

Quite clearly, I DO know what peer-reviewed means LOL. Maybe slow down the reading next time.

 

Meh, irrelevant. Why don't you stop with the whataboutism and take some responsibility.

 

Meh, irrelevant. Why don't YOU stop with the whataboutism and take some responsibility?

 

He lived on his own terms, did not force his beliefs on anyone else, and did not let others do it to him. He died on his feet refusing to live on his knees. He earned respect while others earned what comes with calling him names and using his death for a "I WAS RIGHT" moment.

This type of thread should be called a "schadenthread"

 

You don't peer review constants.
You going to peer review a death
You going to peer review an injection
You going to peer review the hospitalized
You should learn what peer reviewed is before you try and use it again

 

So, we still don't know for sure if the earth is flat or round?

Damn...

 

Really, show me. When you can't you can apologize for the fake claim

The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

You were saying?????

 

I am not the one pushing whataboutism. Go back and re-read the thread.

 

LOL What? Why on earth do you think "peer reviewed study" means peer reviewing deaths etc?

Peer review refers to studies, period. Maybe you're not clear what a study means? Is that the problem?

So, when I said non peer-reviewed study, that's because that's what "peer reviewed" refers to - studies. Studies are written reports on research that's been conducted, explaining the purpose of the study, the methodology, the findings (including data), conclusions, and so forth. All written down in a study. The study is then informally published as a "pre-print". A pre-print is a study that has not yet been peer-reviewed. Peer reviewed means evaluated by peers - i.e. those with the qualifications and expertise necessary to evaluate it. If and when these experts give it their approval, it can be published and is no longer a pre-print. It is a "published" study which - by virtue of having been peer-reviewed - can be considered trustworthy and reliable. Before then, while a study is still a "pre-print" - like YOUR study is a pre-print - it is NOT considered trustworthy.

Which is exactly why I said "your non peer-reviewed study" - to point out that it is not a trustworthy source. Something which went right over your head, evidently.

 

Oh contraire, it is relevant. You were were the who noted the apparent difference about people gloating over an individual's death and statistics. As I said I can point to posts where a conservative poster has gloated over the impending deaths of many people from COVID. How is that different/better? And your wrong it's not whataboutism. The point is that there are a minority of individuals on both sides of politics on this forum who tend to do this, particularly with regards to COVID - and its wrong, full stop, end of story, no exceptions.

As for taking responsibility? Show me a post where I said it was OK to do so simply because 'the other side' does it'. I'll wait. You call it out when you see it shouldn't matter matter which 'side' does it. There are no 'sides' on issues like that. So sorry, adopting that position is taking responsibility

 

No, you're flaunting hypocrisy. Go back and re-read the thread.

 

The study did not involve 2.5 million people. That's the number of people enrolled in the Maccabi database. The study used a fraction of the records in the Maccabi database. And, only 257 people to conclude a 13x better protection.

Vaccinated v. previously infected:​

257 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded, of which 238 occurred in the vaccinated group
(breakthrough infections) and 19 in the previously infected group (reinfections). After adjusting for
comorbidities, we found a statistically significant 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for
breakthrough infection as \opposed to reinfection (P<0.001).​

 

Are you being intentionally obtuse? If employers, including the government, want to make it a requirement (for their own employees only), they certainly can. I'm not saying they should, just that they have that right. But when it comes to governmental mandates, except for the military and civilian employees, it is not their role, nor do they possess the authority to tell private businesses they must require a covid vaccine, or anything else for that matter. And the Supremes, fortunately, agree with me which is why Biden's mandate on companies with >100 employees got nixed.

 

Then you will have to argue it with them as I didn't give you an opinion. Its their statement and they didn't say what you claim.

The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

 

Secret Decoder Ring: Anything and everything, up to and including overt bigotry, constant hatred and self-righteousness (even watching their man crush do nothing while his supporters beat the hell out of hundreds of police officers) are all justifiable for any reason, at any time, for always.

Anything else, irrespective or it's benevolence, fairness, decency, lawful and productive <done by the people they hate> is idiocy, treason, hateful, immoral, pathetic and sordid.

 

Peer reviewed is used for studies asking others to come to the same conclusions based on the same data provided from a particular experiment to affirm of deny the findings.

You don't peer review a constant. How do you peer review a death? Is someone going to find, hey, he isn't dead? There is no peer review on how many are vaccinated. That's a constant. Theres no peer review on someone who isn't vaccinated. Thats a constant. There is no peer review on how many are hospitalized.

 

Well, yes PL. That's why I ask clarifying questions. People retain information if they have to use their own brain to get to the answer.

I just try to guide them to that process.

 

We do know it’s solid…

 

Except for the quicksand underneath the feet of anti-vaxxers working for Hershey's...

 

he will be remembered as dying before his time cause he refused the vaccine by many

 

can you give us an example of somebody singling out some one for being vaxxed that died that was celebrated as the op did above? I’m sure there are those as sick as that but we see it constantly from the op.

 

Groups dying yes, specific individuals? I'll have to dig a bit. Give me some time.

 

This is how many will remember him:

 

Can you point out whatever you find celebratory in the OP's first post on this incident, please?