This sharp contrast in the excess death rate gap before and after vaccines were available suggests that vaccine take-up likely played an important role.
Correlation, dummy.
They "suggest" that it was the vaccine.
They did not isolate vaccines as the cause.
Guess what else happened right around the same time - Democratic states locked down harder than Republican states. Democratic voters wore masks. Democratic voters didn't visit friends or family. Democratic voters locked themselves in their basements because the news told them to.
Again, major political bias. Their intention was to find a way to show that conservative voters were more likely to die. When your intention is set out from the beginning, you can find stats to confirm your bias.
You're a retard, ya?
You know what else... People have less car accidents when they lock themselves in their basements. Lockdowns led to less people dying from car accidents.
You are skipping over the fact that the excess mortality rate was the same for both groups until the vaccines arrived.
No i didn't. I understand that this is a correlation study, a biased one at that.
I don't see you hollering "Correlation, dummy" when one of your fellow travelers posts again about someone dying some time after being vaccinated.
Because I don't care. They're doing the exact opposite of what media is doing, presenting the obviously biased pro-vaccine studies only or presenting correlation or coincidence as fact, so i'm fine with the retardedness being balanced out. Cost-benefit studies are what needs to be presented to people. Media has never done that, so I don't care if people do the opposite on the flipside. I do understand what limited amount can be taken away from correlation or coincidence. You do not.
So you're saying lockdowns work. Interesting. V&C1 would make a post mocking you for that.
Huh? Ya, they work at preventing people to not get covid, at a big cost. What a stupid, retarded question. Again, no cost-benefit, as if covid is the only thing that affects people.
And, just so we're clear - Your report is retarded. It's correlation in a very precise targeted area, without isolating other factors that could be the cause of the correlation. You wouldn't understand.
You are skipping over the fact that the excess mortality rate was the same for both groups until the vaccines arrived.
No i didn't. I understand that this is a correlation study
And your explanation for the before-and-after-vaccines difference in the rates is what, precisely? So far all you've said is basically "I think they're biased". Is that your only proof? That you suspect they manipulated the numbers? But you have nothing else to offer?
Correlation, dummy.
They "suggest" that it was the vaccine.
They did not isolate vaccines as the cause.
Guess what else happened right around the same time - Democratic states locked down harder than Republican states. Democratic voters wore masks. Democratic voters didn't visit friends or family. Democratic voters locked themselves in their basements because the news told them to.
Again, major political bias. Their intention was to find a way to show that conservative voters were more likely to die. When your intention is set out from the beginning, you can find stats to confirm your bias.
You're a retard, ya?
You know what else... People have less car accidents when they lock themselves in their basements. Lockdowns led to less people dying from car accidents.
You are skipping over the fact that the excess mortality rate was the same for both groups until the vaccines arrived.
I don't see you hollering "Correlation, dummy" when one of your fellow travelers posts again about someone dying some time after being vaccinated.
So you're saying lockdowns work. Interesting. V&C1 would make a post mocking you for that.
No i didn't. I understand that this is a correlation study, a biased one at that.
Because I don't care. They're doing the exact opposite of what media is doing, presenting the obviously biased pro-vaccine studies only or presenting correlation or coincidence as fact, so i'm fine with the retardedness being balanced out. Cost-benefit studies are what needs to be presented to people. Media has never done that, so I don't care if people do the opposite on the flipside. I do understand what limited amount can be taken away from correlation or coincidence. You do not.
Huh? Ya, they work at preventing people to not get covid, at a big cost. What a stupid, retarded question. Again, no cost-benefit, as if covid is the only thing that affects people.
And, just so we're clear - Your report is retarded. It's correlation in a very precise targeted area, without isolating other factors that could be the cause of the correlation. You wouldn't understand.
And your explanation for the before-and-after-vaccines difference in the rates is what, precisely? So far all you've said is basically "I think they're biased". Is that your only proof? That you suspect they manipulated the numbers? But you have nothing else to offer?
I already told you. I gave possible explanations. The study gave a possible explanation. Lots of correlation with nothing isolated.
No. Never said that.
Nothing else to offer to a study that already had a conclusion before it even started? What’s more to even say?