Eg, you guys say "not enough research or shit when into it" while not specifying or even having in mind any standard that would be enough. If I bring up any thing you'll look for any single minor detail and then whinge about that instead of interacting with the hard data or considering that you might be in the wrong.
If you want to effectively debate you can't go in with your position already made up with no tolerance for new information or changing your stance.
And debating about covid requires things like you to know what mRNA is, how statistics actually work, and things that you're too busy getting taught responses to actually learn anything.
Can you not read?
"Researchers did not provide vaccine effectiveness estimates because they did not calculate how many of the infected employees were unvaccinated"
This data is worthless if in reality you're more likely to be seriously and lastingly ill when unjabbed which data from not fringe websites that actually look at all the relevant data inevitably conclude.
“Research”
haha you mean your Microsoft Bill Gates computer model. https://omegacanada.win/p/16bPj8pDCJ/i-didnt-get-a-proven-and-common-/c/
Are you gonna prove that it's unreliable or what?
You're confusing bad faith acting with debating.
Eg, you guys say "not enough research or shit when into it" while not specifying or even having in mind any standard that would be enough. If I bring up any thing you'll look for any single minor detail and then whinge about that instead of interacting with the hard data or considering that you might be in the wrong.
If you want to effectively debate you can't go in with your position already made up with no tolerance for new information or changing your stance.
And debating about covid requires things like you to know what mRNA is, how statistics actually work, and things that you're too busy getting taught responses to actually learn anything.