0
DoggyDawg 0 points ago +1 / -1

My neighbor, Dave, is conservative. He cares about a lot of the people in the neighborhood.

0
DoggyDawg 0 points ago +1 / -1

The hat makes her look taller 😎

0
DoggyDawg 0 points ago +1 / -1

I’m pro-abortion. Even still, you gotta look at who’s producing these studies.

Disclosing a conflict of interest, one of the authors is also a plaintiff in several lawsuits challenging abortion restriction in the state of Montana and has received personal fees from the Society of Family Planning Stipend as well as grants from other groups to conduct the study.

0
DoggyDawg 0 points ago +1 / -1

You still think i was criticizing your English. You’re not too bright, man.

0
DoggyDawg 0 points ago +1 / -1

It’s funny that you mention reading comprehension

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Of course you think i was correcting your English. You’re not too bright.

2
DoggyDawg 2 points ago +2 / -0

Merry Christmas to you too 😎

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

You think I’m criticizing your English? I’m not. I don’t do that. You’re obviously a retard.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

People make typos, you know? Losers like yourself point them out for some gay reason.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

She says she has proof the more accurate count was never published until July 2023 but refuses to produce it.

What? Whether or not it was published has nothing to do with this. Official stats used the old more reliable method. That's what it says in your link.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

"You're dumb for doing what the people who understand pandemics and public health advise."

I wouldn't otherwise do this because I'm not gay. I will this time because you do this to others - Advice, not avise.

But anyway, your fix was not required. News media blew this out of proportion. Some "experts" recommended staying inside, some recommended that those at risk stay inside, while others recommended not to because there are consequences besides catching covid to cowering in your basement. You see, things like this are not unanimous. "Experts" have variants in opinions.

But anyway, since you understand this mow, you finally understand that the correlation in the study isn’t necessarily due due vaccine hesitancy. It may or may not be and might have somewhat to do with it. But at least you get that the actual study is bullshit.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Feel free to come up with a practicing professional in a relevant field who's anti-vax.

What? That's not what this video is about.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

On a medical issue this economist apparently disagrees with all the virologists and public health officials in the world.

All virologists and public health officials worldwide? I thought opinions trigger you.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, i did make a mistake. I meant 2020. You know that. Doesn’t change anything. Bullshit study. You believe this bullshit because you want to believe it. Seems like you’ll believe a lot if bullshit that supports your opinions.

Taking the journalist's word for what's in the study instead of reading it yourself?

What? Did you read it? From the actual study:

However, one alternative explanation is that political party affiliation is a proxy for other risk factors (beyond age, which we adjusted for) for excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as rates of underlying medical conditions, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or health insurance coverage.

Found a correlation and not necessarily the cause. Many other factors, besides the ones just mentioned, could factor into it.

I’m gonna also give an opinion, even though opinions trigger you - another possible factor in the correlation is that democrats were more likely to cower in their basements because the news told them to. Can’t get covid if you don’t leave the house.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don’t even know what you’re taking about anymore? Are you saying that i should prove that your link states that they updated past covid death stats after correcting how they count covid deaths? You imply that they did update the stats. Where in your link does it say that they did this? If it does not say that they did, then they did not.

2
DoggyDawg 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know, i made a mistake. May, 2022, not April. The facts are still the same. Republicans suddenly starting dying more, magically, as soon as vaccines are introduced, even thought very few people are even vaccinated. And yes, when the author of the study specifically says that the study could “easily” be wrong, he’s telling you it’s bullshit. You choose to believe it because you want to believe it.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, you posted them. Did you delete? Again? It’s what you normally do when i destroy your retarded reasoning.

2
DoggyDawg 2 points ago +2 / -0

I mean, the author of the study basically admitted it was a bullshit study. This study is specifically created for retards like you.

The only bullshit so far is presented by ScoobyDoo, folks. Absolutely no one had access to a vaccine in April 2020.

No vaccines in April, 2020, eh? Shouldn’t that give you more reason to not believe the bullshit in this study?

2
DoggyDawg 2 points ago +2 / -0

From the link:

The researchers warned that there could easily be other factors than political affiliation that contributed to the excess mortality rate, such as underlying medical conditions, socioeconomic status, or health insurance coverage.

Especially note the word “easily.”

This study found that excess deaths in republican counties suddenly increased in April, 2020 when vaccines were introduced. Right. Remember April, 2020? Very few people even had a chance to get a vaccine. They had to ration it for a few months. Yet democrats were suddenly dying less right away, even though the majority were not even vaccinated yet.

Can you spot a bullshit politically biased study meant to manipulate you? Apparently not.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your link.

I’ll tell you something else. The 10-20 % correlation is the exact same as saying covid deaths are over-stated by up to 20% (a little more, actually, if you want to be mathematically correct).

They could present it to you either way. They choose with stating it as a correlation because it doesn’t seem as bad that way. This is done intentionally to manipulate people. It works because the majority of the population is dumb. It worked on you.

This happens more than you think. It’s everywhere. You and most others will never realize you’re being manipulated.

People without stats training, like yourself, should at least read a non-technical book like Innumeracy or How To Lie With Statistics. This will help protect you from looking like a fool when you argue with someone about basic math.

1
DoggyDawg 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol. That’s what your link says. Unless you edited previous comments, as you tend to do. I’m not checking.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›