I would like to add here once again, for the statistically illiterate;
the unvaxxed are vastly oversampled in positive testing by simple virtue of there being minimal cause for a vaxxed person to get a test, and by the fact that asymptomatic cases are far, far more common with vaxxed individuals.
Please, lads, get that 8 hour course in statistics. It genuinely is a fucking necessity for "doing the research"
It is linked to a www.lifesitenews.com video which I think is one of the best red-pills there is for normies. It takes a few seconds to load the site and you have to scroll down a bit to get to the video (the video takes a few seconds to load). The video is over an hour long, but is clearly divided into topic sections. The PCR Test section starts at the 7:30 mark and I think it will clearly answer your question. I recommend watching the whole video though after checking out the PCR Test section. WWG1WGA.
I'm going to say this as emphatically as possible, THESE CRIMINALS MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE
Fauci knew damn well what he was doing was criminal. Doctors that are going along with the criminal acts, know what they are doing is wrong. Pfizer executives should be beheaded, at the minimum.
And I'm going to say this too. Trump is guilty either by commission or omission (incompetence) in letting the criminals push this fake pandemic narrative and get away with it. He did not have to listen to doctors and scientist who among the whole lot, had never treated one single Covid patient.
You go to a bookshelf in a strangers home and you want to test them for communism. You rip the spine off every book, and throw all the pages in a random pile on the floor.
You have a team of workers who each pick up a page at random, and put it through a photocopier a certain number of times, then throw all the paper back into the pile at random.
Then, the workers go through the entire stack and count the occurrences of each unique sentence. This results in a list of every unique sentence in every book on the shelf occurring however many times each page got photocopied.
At the end of the day, they total up the number of times any of the following words occur: "people's", "comrade", or "bourgeois".
If this total exceeds a threshold, then the person has tested positive for communism and should be pushed out of a helicopter.
The amplification factor (or cycle threshold) is the number of photocopies the workers will make.
The more photocopies, the more sensitive the result.
If the word "people's" appears once in one book but a million photocopies are made, it would have the same result as if the entire bookshelf was full of communist propaganda and a thousand photocopies were made. That's how the false positives happen.
Or it could be compared to securely deleting data on a hard drive (in this example using ccleaner), or scanning for deleting files (with Recuva).
If you want to simple delete data from a drive, the head makes one pass over the data, and writes over top it if. If you do a very secure delete, it makes 35 passes over the data and writes X's over it 35 times. One time, and 35 times are not equal due to the amount of inexactness in the head positioning on the disk, sort of like in the old days with tape tracking.
When you run scan of a disk using Deep Scan method, all it's doing is making more passes over the same Volumn-Cylinder-Head-Sector address to see if it can pick up data using multiple passes, where as it would not using one pass.
And they don’t count any symptoms of vaccinated as vaccinated until “fully vaccinated” 14 days after the last dose they said was last dose. Which one are we on now... 8?
I believe this is only true for what data is collected by the CDC on breakthrough cases. When I have had to get tested they never ask whether I am vaccinated, how would they know to change the threshold?
Seems to me you need to get a course on common sense
there being minimal cause for a vaxxed person to get a test
Yet they are getting tested anyway, because the narrative is they can still get sick from it even after the 2 doses
I find it humorous you think these people act with any basis in logic, have you been watching?
Now think about this for a second, if someone is refusing the vaccine, it most likely means they are not deathly afraid of the kung flu as the sheep are, hence they would hardly even look to get tested in the first place
While the sheep are still running to get tested because of a little sniffle, even after being "fully immunized"
Also by "asymptomatic" you of course mean "false positive on a perfectly heathy individual because of BS tests"
But keep in mind that testing centers are turning away folks that claim they are vax’d , or their results are being tossed and they are given a clean bill of health. It is likely that there are much more positive cases who are vax’d, meaning the spread of vax vs unvax is not as large as 400%. You can also say that since unvax’d are running at 40 cycles those cases are too high, therefore their death % is too low. I agree with you, logic and statistics come out to play here, but these fuckers are playing the fix is in game. So until they fix their shit (numbers ) and report real data, the math above is sound and they need to live with it…. Unvax’d are dying at 400% more than vax’d
I'm pretty sure the whole asymptomatic thing is bollocks, it is simply a way to explain away the dodgy positive result from the useless PCR test when individuals test positive with no symptoms. They don't have covid or anything else but get a positive result.
This is actually the "90% effective". from what I can tell, those who are vaccinated but get the virus in their bloodstream, still get viral buildup in the nose but no lung irritation or fever. So they get a minor case of the sniffles in the form of a leaky nose that is still fully infectious but no actual sickness.
Because, you know, by all accounts this seems to be a non-neutralizing vaccine
The other problems with the analysis are that the vax apparently reduces symptoms thus contributing to undercounting cases, and it doesn't take into account the relative sizes of vaxed and unvaxed population in the UK.
When I did a similar analysis a few months ago I normalized the ratio of death counts by the ratio of population size for the two populations and found that for delta variant, vaccination produced about a 40% reduction in deaths. Which is something, but really is not that impressive given all the other risks of the shots.
OK. Cool. I failed statistics because my professor only passed the attractive young women who entertained his advances. Unfortunatley, I eas attractive and fortunatley, I had morals.
Considering the premise that so many vaxxed are dying, how would one extrapolate the number who would have tested positive, had they been subjected to the same testing as the unvaxxed?
Because it sure looks like we have a whole lot of asymptomatic spreaders running around with their delta germs and infecting those who choose not to drink the koolaid.
and by the fact that asymptomatic cases are far, far more common with vaxxed individuals.
Can you back that up?
We now also know that some 2/3 of cases were undetected in the unvaccinated, because of how much of a joke China is at creating anything including bioweapons.
Taking what you say at face value (no references or data provided, so that is a presumption - though a good and probably a valid one), what I get out of that is that 434% is the Low End of the statistic. Depending on the amount of oversampling of the un-Jabbed positive testing, the double Jabbed could be dying at a significantly higher rate than 434% more - maybe even up to ~ double that.
You're obviously statistically illiterate. What the hell is oversampled? I haven't found any government data that differentiates between the total number of vaxxed/unvaxxed tested on any given day.
Asymptomatic is irrelevant as it's you can find dead particles of "covid" in someones nose hairs just as you would several other viruses. Meaning, someone with dead covid particles in their nose hairs is listed as a case but asymptomatic rather than just a healthy person who was never sick.
And there is no data to suggest "asymptomatic cases are far, far more common with vaxxed individuals". Where the fuck did you get that bullshit from? Your trusted government?
I would like to add here once again, for the statistically illiterate;
the unvaxxed are vastly oversampled in positive testing by simple virtue of there being minimal cause for a vaxxed person to get a test, and by the fact that asymptomatic cases are far, far more common with vaxxed individuals.
Please, lads, get that 8 hour course in statistics. It genuinely is a fucking necessity for "doing the research"
Don't forget that the vaccinated are tested with a cycle threshold of 28 and the unvaccinated are tested with a cycle threshold of 40.
Do you have a good reference for understanding what exactly that means? I dont fully understand the tests and finding good info Is tough
Here is a good one IMO. Go this this GAW post:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJBwlnl2/masterfully-done-documentary-exp/c/
It is linked to a www.lifesitenews.com video which I think is one of the best red-pills there is for normies. It takes a few seconds to load the site and you have to scroll down a bit to get to the video (the video takes a few seconds to load). The video is over an hour long, but is clearly divided into topic sections. The PCR Test section starts at the 7:30 mark and I think it will clearly answer your question. I recommend watching the whole video though after checking out the PCR Test section. WWG1WGA.
Thank you for posting that.
Great video, second time watching.
I'm going to say this as emphatically as possible, THESE CRIMINALS MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE
Fauci knew damn well what he was doing was criminal. Doctors that are going along with the criminal acts, know what they are doing is wrong. Pfizer executives should be beheaded, at the minimum.
And I'm going to say this too. Trump is guilty either by commission or omission (incompetence) in letting the criminals push this fake pandemic narrative and get away with it. He did not have to listen to doctors and scientist who among the whole lot, had never treated one single Covid patient.
Here's an analogy to explain PCR:
You go to a bookshelf in a strangers home and you want to test them for communism. You rip the spine off every book, and throw all the pages in a random pile on the floor.
You have a team of workers who each pick up a page at random, and put it through a photocopier a certain number of times, then throw all the paper back into the pile at random.
Then, the workers go through the entire stack and count the occurrences of each unique sentence. This results in a list of every unique sentence in every book on the shelf occurring however many times each page got photocopied.
At the end of the day, they total up the number of times any of the following words occur: "people's", "comrade", or "bourgeois".
If this total exceeds a threshold, then the person has tested positive for communism and should be pushed out of a helicopter.
The amplification factor (or cycle threshold) is the number of photocopies the workers will make.
The more photocopies, the more sensitive the result.
If the word "people's" appears once in one book but a million photocopies are made, it would have the same result as if the entire bookshelf was full of communist propaganda and a thousand photocopies were made. That's how the false positives happen.
ThT is a very sensible analogy.
Or it could be compared to securely deleting data on a hard drive (in this example using ccleaner), or scanning for deleting files (with Recuva).
If you want to simple delete data from a drive, the head makes one pass over the data, and writes over top it if. If you do a very secure delete, it makes 35 passes over the data and writes X's over it 35 times. One time, and 35 times are not equal due to the amount of inexactness in the head positioning on the disk, sort of like in the old days with tape tracking.
When you run scan of a disk using Deep Scan method, all it's doing is making more passes over the same Volumn-Cylinder-Head-Sector address to see if it can pick up data using multiple passes, where as it would not using one pass.
Disclaimer: non-technical description
And didn’t the man who invented it conveniently for the DS die right before the pandemic?
With enough added cycles a pcr test can find tyrannosaurus DNA in everything
I identify as a prehistoric carnivore
Basically it means that the unvaxxed tests are set up to generate more than the ones given to the vaxxed.
Exactly.
Here's a break down of what viruses really are, along with a summary of PCR testing.
While it may be hard to come to terms with how much everyone is being misled, it's very important to understand the reality of the situation.
x^28=y vs x^40=y
If y > z = you got covid
z = whatever the globalist "scientists" want it to be
Exponetial growth in each cycle
And they don’t count any symptoms of vaccinated as vaccinated until “fully vaccinated” 14 days after the last dose they said was last dose. Which one are we on now... 8?
Only counted as covid breakthrough 14 days after second shot or they count the side effects as unvaccinated https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7034e5-H.pdf Op: https://patriots.win/p/12jwaKGVAH/its-this-kind-of-bullshit-by-the/c/
Eu Covid pass has slot for eight boosters?! https://greatawakening.win/p/12jwMKpRKA/are-you-awake-yet--/c/
I believe this is only true for what data is collected by the CDC on breakthrough cases. When I have had to get tested they never ask whether I am vaccinated, how would they know to change the threshold?
Still bullshit but a slightly different form....
May 21 2021: “Caught Red-Handed: CDC Changes Test Thresholds To Virtually Eliminate New COVID Cases Among Vaxx'd” https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/caught-red-handed-cdc-changes-test-thresholds-virtually-eliminate-new-covid-cases-among “But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.”
Seems to me you need to get a course on common sense
Yet they are getting tested anyway, because the narrative is they can still get sick from it even after the 2 doses
I find it humorous you think these people act with any basis in logic, have you been watching?
Now think about this for a second, if someone is refusing the vaccine, it most likely means they are not deathly afraid of the kung flu as the sheep are, hence they would hardly even look to get tested in the first place
While the sheep are still running to get tested because of a little sniffle, even after being "fully immunized"
Also by "asymptomatic" you of course mean "false positive on a perfectly heathy individual because of BS tests"
Exactly.
The real problem is health agencies aren't collecting or making available high quality data from which conclusions can be drawn.
Garbage in, garbage out. This analysis may be poor, but the data is useless shit to begin with.
Is there a specific course you are referring to?
The course I got in my bachelor (one semester, 8 classes) did the job for me. You might find a good alternative online.
But keep in mind that testing centers are turning away folks that claim they are vax’d , or their results are being tossed and they are given a clean bill of health. It is likely that there are much more positive cases who are vax’d, meaning the spread of vax vs unvax is not as large as 400%. You can also say that since unvax’d are running at 40 cycles those cases are too high, therefore their death % is too low. I agree with you, logic and statistics come out to play here, but these fuckers are playing the fix is in game. So until they fix their shit (numbers ) and report real data, the math above is sound and they need to live with it…. Unvax’d are dying at 400% more than vax’d
Agree, people who refuse the jab refuse the stupid tests as well.
I'm pretty sure the whole asymptomatic thing is bollocks, it is simply a way to explain away the dodgy positive result from the useless PCR test when individuals test positive with no symptoms. They don't have covid or anything else but get a positive result.
This is actually the "90% effective". from what I can tell, those who are vaccinated but get the virus in their bloodstream, still get viral buildup in the nose but no lung irritation or fever. So they get a minor case of the sniffles in the form of a leaky nose that is still fully infectious but no actual sickness.
Because, you know, by all accounts this seems to be a non-neutralizing vaccine
The other problems with the analysis are that the vax apparently reduces symptoms thus contributing to undercounting cases, and it doesn't take into account the relative sizes of vaxed and unvaxed population in the UK.
When I did a similar analysis a few months ago I normalized the ratio of death counts by the ratio of population size for the two populations and found that for delta variant, vaccination produced about a 40% reduction in deaths. Which is something, but really is not that impressive given all the other risks of the shots.
These numbers look roughly similar to me.
OK. Cool. I failed statistics because my professor only passed the attractive young women who entertained his advances. Unfortunatley, I eas attractive and fortunatley, I had morals.
Considering the premise that so many vaxxed are dying, how would one extrapolate the number who would have tested positive, had they been subjected to the same testing as the unvaxxed?
Because it sure looks like we have a whole lot of asymptomatic spreaders running around with their delta germs and infecting those who choose not to drink the koolaid.
At least 75% of that is mostly true.
Can you back that up?
We now also know that some 2/3 of cases were undetected in the unvaccinated, because of how much of a joke China is at creating anything including bioweapons.
Taking what you say at face value (no references or data provided, so that is a presumption - though a good and probably a valid one), what I get out of that is that 434% is the Low End of the statistic. Depending on the amount of oversampling of the un-Jabbed positive testing, the double Jabbed could be dying at a significantly higher rate than 434% more - maybe even up to ~ double that.
You're obviously statistically illiterate. What the hell is oversampled? I haven't found any government data that differentiates between the total number of vaxxed/unvaxxed tested on any given day.
Asymptomatic is irrelevant as it's you can find dead particles of "covid" in someones nose hairs just as you would several other viruses. Meaning, someone with dead covid particles in their nose hairs is listed as a case but asymptomatic rather than just a healthy person who was never sick.
And there is no data to suggest "asymptomatic cases are far, far more common with vaxxed individuals". Where the fuck did you get that bullshit from? Your trusted government?
You're an idiot.