The odds of getting myocarditis from the vaxx are not 100%. You have to take the chance to get myocarditis from the vaxx, then multiply that by the chance of death. Then you can compare the two numbers.
It is a logical fallacy. The choice presented is not "get myocarditis or get COVID". The choice is whether or not to take the COVID shot. The way it is presented is a faulty comparison fallacy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where the meme explicitly offers the choice of 'whether or not to take the shot'. I think that's what we assume the meme is trying to say, based on the two discrete diseases that are being compared.
Again, as I said to Slyver, this meme is very misleading, in that it is either 'grammatically poor' or 'intentionally deceptive'.
I don't see where the meme explicitly offers the choice of 'whether or not to take the shot'.
That is what I am saying is wrong with the (not a meme) text presented. The real choice people face is to take the shot or not. In making that decision, they need to know the odds of both acquiring and dying myocarditis, versus the odds of dying from what they are told the "vaccine" protects them from.
The faulty comparison is made worse by the fact that the odds of getting COVID in one's lifetime are nearly 100% at this point. Myocarditis is a rare side-effect, from what we have seen so far. Comparing myocarditis induced by the "vaccine" to COVID death is the same as assuming myocarditis is inevitable.
I want to be clear that I don't believe the "vaccine" provides any protection. The choice people make is often based on misinformation and propaganda fed to them by the media and government.
That's not the right way to say that.
The odds of getting myocarditis from the vaxx are not 100%. You have to take the chance to get myocarditis from the vaxx, then multiply that by the chance of death. Then you can compare the two numbers.
I completely agree with you Slyver, the post (title and image) is terribly misleading, but it's technically correct.
The comparison being made is not between between the coof and 'your chance of dying from myocarditis if you take the vaxx'.
The comparison is simply between the coof (as one disease) and vaxx-induced myocarditis (as another).
Because of how it is worded, there is no need to stack the percentages.
Is it misleading? Yes (due to our own assumptions).
Is it wrong? No.
It is a logical fallacy. The choice presented is not "get myocarditis or get COVID". The choice is whether or not to take the COVID shot. The way it is presented is a faulty comparison fallacy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where the meme explicitly offers the choice of 'whether or not to take the shot'. I think that's what we assume the meme is trying to say, based on the two discrete diseases that are being compared.
Again, as I said to Slyver, this meme is very misleading, in that it is either 'grammatically poor' or 'intentionally deceptive'.
That is what I am saying is wrong with the (not a meme) text presented. The real choice people face is to take the shot or not. In making that decision, they need to know the odds of both acquiring and dying myocarditis, versus the odds of dying from what they are told the "vaccine" protects them from.
The faulty comparison is made worse by the fact that the odds of getting COVID in one's lifetime are nearly 100% at this point. Myocarditis is a rare side-effect, from what we have seen so far. Comparing myocarditis induced by the "vaccine" to COVID death is the same as assuming myocarditis is inevitable.
I want to be clear that I don't believe the "vaccine" provides any protection. The choice people make is often based on misinformation and propaganda fed to them by the media and government.