Again. this is what happens when you read a single fucking graph instead of the entire article. The sample size is 3987. all of them were vaccinated, as it was one of the 2 selection criteria. Out of these 3987, 827 saw their pregnancy end within the window of observation. Out of these 827, 700 belonged to the third trimester group (Which took up 1019 of the initial sample), and the rest belonged to the second and first trimester group (These being 1714 and 1224 respectively). So, 70% of the people in the third trimester saw their pregnancy end, while only .46% of the second semester group and 7.8% of the first trimester. So the number is 8.2%.
Don't ask me where the remaining 23 of the 127 went to, because I have no idea. I can only presume they either got a normal abortion, or were at the very end of the second trimester and gave birth towards the end of the observation window.
Not really tho? out of the 30% of pregnancies that miscarry, 19% fail after the 5th week, 9% after the 7th week, 2.5% after the 10th week and only 1.3% after the 13th week. So assuming those in the periconception stage just flew under the radar, a 96/8 ratio is kinda what you'd expect. Rounded to the accepted average of 19/1.3 we are looking at a 8.3% ratio versus a 5.8% ratio. This might actually be caused by the shock of the vaccine (it would've been helpful had they included more cross statistics about whether the miscarriages also had full-body adverse events), but it might simply be due to a relatively small population (it is after al not much outside of the expected variance you would expect with such a small sample), or a skewed window of observation that probably missed an few cases.
Or, like a functional fucking adult, you can link to the actual study (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed) which is publicly available and free to read, and realize the author is fake and gay and that the unnamed oncologist is a figment of her imagination.
No, it are not 827 total women who are pregnant in the study. It are 3958 women, who are pregnant in the study. 827 is the number of women who had ended their pregnancy in the sample time window of the study (Vaccinated between february 28 and march 30), natural or otherwise.
so it is actually 104 of 1224 pregnancies. Research is hard.
Aaaaanddd the article is fake and gay.
Allow me to disseminate, and do this weird thing that for whatever inexplicable reason very few people here are capable of doing: Research.
And from it we readily conclude that LifeSiteNews either got contacted by a severe dyslectic who miraculously got an oncology degree or just made shit up. Probably the fucking later because if you actually carry out source control, you'll realize they don't actually give you names to refer to, nor make any reference to a wish to remain anonymous despite this being peer review.
The author, who committed an argument from authority fallacy using a made up individual, simply can't read statistics to save her fucking life and outright misrepresents the numbers and perverts the conclusion. So lets tear apart the central claim:
"the researchers had stated there were only 104 miscarriages among 827 pregnant women who had received a COVID vaccine, but reported only in a footnote that 700 of the pregnant women had received the shot after 28 weeks. Losing a baby after 20 weeks is not considered suffering a miscarriage but a still birth, she stated."
So, out of 827 pregnancies that finished, 104 had spontaneous abortions (medical slang for a miscarriage), 96 of which happened in the first trimester. This is actually clearly stated in the study. There is no degree of obfuscation going on and only a blind person could read past this. It clearly, unambiguously states that 90% of the premature abortions noted in the end results are in the first 13 weeks.
But you see, the reason why this is such a retarded statement, is that it isn't 104 miscarriages out of 827 pregnant women who got the vaccine.
its 104 out of 3958 pregnant women who got the vaccine. 827 is the partition of participants who GAVE BIRTH in the scope of the study; it lasting approximately a month from February 28th (the start period of when individuals were seen as viable for the sample) to March 30th; kinda speaks for itself that not everyone surveyed would give birth in the period of a month, don't it?
The true number of 13<w pregnant women vaccinates vs miscarried is actually 96 vs 1224
Honestly, looking at it from an objective view:
Trump has to be the single most squeeky clean motherfucker to have ever done business in Manhattan. 6 years of investigation from half a dozen of agencies, countless cases of questionable legal overreach, millions of dollars thrown away and untold thousands of manhours, and that is ALL they find.
How. How the fuck is this possible. If you had told me Trump had literally NOTHING to get him on I would call you a liar. Not even a poorly submitted taxform, mindlessly given signage to a questionable initiative or minor act of tax evasion? How? Trump must be the cleanest boi in the US employing the single most clean accountant on the planet. Its actually impressive he did not do anything for them to nail him with by fucking accident.
Given how abrasive he comes across here, and how he describes them as "sheep" and "libtards", i'm gonna go on a limb here and say his boss won't exactly have a hard time getting his former colleagues to testify against him and affirm that the lay off wasn't made on medical grounds but on grounds of disruption.
Lad, imma level with ya, but just given the fact that you are on this site, no cap describe your colleagues as "libtards" and "sheep", and your boss as a "asshole", you all around come across as an immensely loudmouthed, confrontational and vocal individual; Yeah I'm guessing you have been stacking up red cards like a motherfucker with any politically unaligned coworker for years now and the 2020 election didn't make it better.
Seriously, if you are even half as abrasive against your collegues and bosses as you are in this post, then you are just a massive disruption and demoralizing force on anything that isn't a ideologically homogenous workplace.
Also you don't actually have a right to have a job; claiming that you have is real commie bullshit and you fucking know it. That is silly. And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to fire you over a personal choice because most things people are fired over are things that are their personal choice -_-. In fact, for the most part lay-off protections specifically target things that are NOT in any way a personal choice, like tragedy, inherent characteristics, or religious compulsions. Everything else is fair game. Anything more is commie bullshit.
So you better fucking hope that once you call in your lawyer, you don't have the entire fucking workplace standing in queue to testify on your disruptive behavior, and to land you court fees on top of joblessness.
Not really, absorption being a thing, all droplets over a modest size will be caught and absorbed by the cloth.
How useful you mask is cam honestly be easily checked by just spraying a water bottle through it from like 6-8 inch away (if it actually has enough force to go twice that range, otherwise move closer). Most masks will see basically no pass through, and water has less cohesion than spittle and will thusly form smaller droplets.
We don't actually need this debate. You can literally just grab a spray bottle and check the passthrough rate of moisture of every single cloth in your house. You'll find that cloth is remarkably effective at soaking up droplets trying to pass through it at high speeds
....Ah for the love of....
Listen, unless you can provide me the research papers of these trails that state otherwise, we can freely assume that every single fucking AR event in the study is "the development of any singular meaningfully disruptive health effect due to Covid-19 infection", with a cap of 1 AR per person. In other words, every notable infection is counted regardless of its severity unless its asymptomatic.
RRR is the efficacy rate of the treatment itself. ARR is the incidence reduction rate across the entire population, in other words, not the efficacy rate of the treatment itself but the efficacy rate of what a population wide rollout would look like.
This means that 95% is 95% is 95%. Really no other way to state it. If you, as a person, take the vaccine, your chance of suffering from a meaningfully disruptive health effect in the event you are exposed to COVID is 1/20th of what it used to be. Yes, your chances of actually getting exposed to it are highly variable and by factoring in this chance you can get an overview of what the efficacy of the vaccine could be at slowing down the spread.
And that wasn't what I stated. What I stated was "if you don't know the context of the control pool you cannot ascertain how meaningful the ARR is". Certainly there are analysis where ARR relates to the health of the control group but this only factors in whenever we are looking at specific health complications of a condition rather than the appearance of the condition to begin with. You'd have a point if this ARR analysis was looking at treatment options for active covid cases rather than preventative measures, but it doesn't, so you don't. Which means that in this case, ARR only and strictly refers to the risk of infectivity in your region at that specific time, which means it will vary wildly.
That being said, ARR in this way does actually inform the default vaccine package in most nations. For example, western countries typically don't have a yellow fever vaccine, because our the ARR on a population wide rollout is so phenomenally small as to not warranting even mentioning; we are talking like a one in a million shift, despite the yellow fever vaccine being one of the most reliable in the world. In third world nations within the tropical regions where the mosquitos that have the disease live, however, we are most likely looking at a .1 ARR (which, for the record, is still considerably lower than what you've stated here, though yellow fever is of course a lot more dangerous than covid)
Again, dipshit;
ARR can help contextualize RRR in the right situations. If we can assume the ARR is somewhat consistent over either time or region, which in this case (And for that matter, most viral phenomena), is absolutely not the case. The ARR of a 90% effective cure for a viral phenoma can swing from .1% to 40% in the span of a month if we are speaking about something with a ridiculous level of infectiousness, and it can vary again when you look into the next town. It is 100% contextual and in absence of said context, its junk data.
To elaborate on your example:
For every number of road crossings, there will be a small percentage people getting run over. the RRR in this case is most likely around 100% and thus the ARR will be the same as the AR% because we can assume that people who don't cross the road have a nil chance of getting run over.
Your chances of getting ran over IF you cross the street however will fluctuate wildly. If you were to cross the freeway, your chances will most likely grow by an order of several magnitudes (Extreme example). The RRR will remain the same, but context was far more dangerous, therefor the ARR grows. Yet this does not affect the efficacy of the obvious way to avoid getting ran over; not running across the freeway. Every street will also most likely have a slightly different ARR, and every season will also quite likely have a wholly different ARR.
All of this is wholly inconsequential to the efficacy of not crossing at all. It is consistent across all scenarios without fail.
Now, again, this is where "don't research if you don't understand how to research" comes back in, and that is how it factors into human risk assessment, which is what every article you could counter me with will invariable talk about and not about statistical merit. Because you see, due to the incident rate being variable across place and time, the context will inform the advisability of deciding not to cross or altering the way you cross; though if you are doughbrained you might make the conclusion that "in order to not get ran over, you shouldn't cross the road", and therefor refuse to cross a nigh-unused road on a summer morning. Now, naturally nobody will fall for this argument as we all have a pretty good understanding of which roads are dumb to cross, but if put in the context of a patient with a chronic condition it makes more sense (In case you missed it, the article that you quoted wasn't a statistical manual, but a communication manual); for example, when advising on 2 different, mutually exclusive treatments with differing efficacy for the same condition, it would be prudent to talk about the relative and absolute benefits of the treatment and the absolute risk they both have compared to non-usage, while only mentioning the relative risks they have relative to eachother.
And again, to reiterate; without knowing exactly the time, place and population characteristics of every single fucking ARR cited here in order to first relativize them towards eachother (In case the lack of rhyme and reason between the RRR's and the ARR's didn't tip you off; they were most likely tested in different regions and at different points in time), the ARR is useless. And if we had it, it still wouldn't tell us about the efficacy of the vaccine; it can, at best, be used in conjunction with the RRR to weigh its value so people can relativize the possible risk of a jab vs the possible benefits. But again, you'd need a recent, regional ARR to actually have it be of use. on its own, it could be used to estimate the effect the vaccine might have on the spread of the virus or future logistical needs such as hospitalizations and medical supplies. If the same test was to be done on that one cruise ship in the start of the pandemic that reached almost full saturation, the ARR would most likely end up at around 80%. Do it in eastern Siberia, and we are looking at about .01% if that. **
Because OP is a halfwit and fails to understand that ARR is never used for anything ever except for a few chronic conditions, because it is a completely contextual value that can differ wildly over 2 identical tests when dealing with a viral condition?
RRR is the only thing you ever see used because its the only thing with actual indicative properties.
Let me put it this way;
you have 2 surgery methods for the same condition:
One has been tried 1000 times, saw 45 die mid-procedure
Another one has also been tried 1000times, and saw 40 die mid-procedure.
The ARR in this case is 4.5% and 4% respectively, and only a treatment effectiveness delta of .5% relative to eachother. Thats fucking nothing. If 2 populaces were treated in the exact same way, there would be 11.25%% more mortalities from method A. Now, you might think that that makes the much more meaningful 11.25% the RRR. You'd be wrong.
Because consider this; we expect 5% of people from die from complications to begin with if not given immediate surgery. So the actual control group, the one isolated from the background risk, is only a group of 50 individuals, not the one with 1000 we started off with. And taking the AR event to be death, we are looking at a 20% RRR relative to the control group from method B and only 10% RRR relative to the control group from method A. the ARR in both cases remains the previously. This means that despite the seemingly diminutive initial numbers, the ACTUAL statistical conclusion, is that operation B is twice as effective at preventing mortalities than operation A. and yet, our ARR has remained .5%.
Now imagine if instead of death, it was a disease that you take as your AR event. Depending on the present spread rate of the virus, the background risk might fluctuate from as low as .1% to as high as 30% for a single span of a month. And if you were to have the exact same fucking test the next month, you end up with a vastly different ARR
Please don't cite studies if you literally haven't have the faintest idea what you are talking about and somehow fail to read the part that you are citing. I find myself saying this alot but shut the fuck up about "having done the research" if you can't research yourself out of a knee deep hole, haven't seen any meaningful developments of your understanding of statistics since you were 14, and haven't ever in any significant way needed to dissect an academic paper in an academic context, ie, something you don't really give a shit about but have to interpret as accurately as possible to prevent getting failed for your course.
You aren't referring to the "real efficacy rate", dipshit, and if you read what you posted or literally just googled the acronyms. ARR is practically never used for vaccine effectiveness because its a piss-poor metric for vaccine effectiveness, and should never be employed outside the consideration of chronic conditions, if even.
This is in no small part because it obscures the baseline risk (something known in a chronic condition where both the control and test group have a 100% chance to have the condition). Which is entirely fucking contextual. So, lets assume, for the sake of argument that this study was taken over a one month period. You have 1000 people in the control group, and 1000 people in the test group, all of them testing negative for covid prior to the test starting, else it wouldn't really make much of a difference. Assuming moderate virulance and daily case increase, and again, for the sake of argument, That 970 from both groups just straight up don't get the virus. This means you have a baseline risk of 3%.
Once you actually have this group, you have to isolate those who aren't actually undergoing any Absolute Risks, this being any meaningfully harmful health condition. No, losing your smell, doesn't count. This cuts the number down to 2%.
You then, for these 2% that undergo meaningful health conditions from catching covid, see 90% of the remaining patients or 1.8% of the total populace now not get sick. As such, the number of absolute risk events has gone done by 1.8%. The actual difference? 2 people sick instead of 18 people sick.
Now, why is this a dumb number? Again, context. you could take the exact same fucking study at the exact same region 2 months later, and end up with an ARR of .3% or one of 42% depending on what the baseline risk that month is And looking at the wildly divergent ARR's relative to the RRR's, it is safe to assume that all these studies were taken at different regions of infection density and different times of infection growth rate. ARR has practically no indicative properties to speak off outside a few edge cases
Until new data is written to a location; the data isn't actually lost. When you "delete" something on a hard drive, what really happens is that you just tell your disk to just forget what was there in the first place and to assume it is free space.
With this done, eventually data will write over the existing data. However, if they just deleted it and went on with their day, restoring the pointers is relatively trivial
Seriously, what the fuck is it with these clowns? You could take the W by simply calling the remark silly, and stating that just because he could, doesn't mean he should, because end of the day you can't plainly see someone is vaccinated as opposed to being masked.
But no, instead, he takes that fucking L because he can't restrain his urge to morally grandstand. Seriously, at WORST, this is just the aide being a smartass, and at best weirdly concerned, so why melodramatically call him a "Bully", like he was hounding your around the building interrupting you at every turn to tell you that you are a dumbass for keeping a mask on.
He went speechless because no retord would hand you a bigger L than you just did yourself. You could've just shrugged and said "I think its good form so I'm keeping it on for now", but no, snapped at him because a pleb had the audacity to smartass you.
The annoying part is that the loss of taste can last fucking forever.
7 months on myself and its still dulled. Genuinely infuriating, because it was the only symptom I had, falling off so subtly that by the time I realized it might be covid, it was out of my system already
Again, its the simple practical of war. You should read up on the matter, after Okinawa the US was incredibly weary regarding the prospect of invading the mainland, assuming that they would face an unprecedented degree of civilian resistance. Casualties were expected to be in the Western Front range; about 720000 casualties (dead and wounded) was the most positive estimate, however, with such a massive degree of civilian resistance, it could end up as high as 4 million with 800k dead soldiers. Civilian deaths would be estimated to top 5 million, as the only effective way to really quash such widespread civilian resistance is by basically just flattening every city you come across. To mitigate such damage there was open discussion of just wiping their asses with war laws and employing acid gas bombardments to clean out cities.
On top of that, it was already known to US intelligence that Japan had directives to execute all US POW's should the mainland be invaded, which were to be about 100000 at that point.
At the end of the day, the simple practical of war applies, and the only just war can be a swift war, for all war is an abomination, the prolonging of which is a crime against mankind. 100000 people were burned on the nuclear pyre to shock the nation into compliance. Its crude, it isn't a moral decision at all, but the human cost of throwing the bombs was but a fraction of that of an invasion, and most importantly, the cost would be wholly on the shoulders of the Japanese.
The German Panzers weren't fit for function and especially the later ones seem to have been designed in a vacuum from the logistical needs of the army. In a bid to earn the approval of the party, tank designs were blighted with redesigns which meant tooling and processed had to be constantly revised. Just look at how much difference there is between the different iterations of Panzer IV and Panzer III. This led to an ultimately catastrophic shortage of spare parts because other than the T34 and Sherman, they never bothered standardizing their designs.
The later Panzers were, quite frankly, fucking jokes overhyped by inept historians. The Panther had such an abysmally designed drive drain system that the final drive was prone to breaking in the span of a single tank of gas; a catastrophic failure that would require the tank to be returned to the factory which is why there are so many panthers still in museums; the allies were capable of simply picking them up and towing them away after the crews left them due to a drive failure. Sure, they had amazing armor and impressive firepower which was capable of defeating even the Jumbo Sherman, but their overreliance on train transport (whose tracks, especially in france during 1944, were continually being sabotaged by resistance efforts) and inability to move up or retreat for prolonged areas proved a fatal flaw. The Tiger II was just retarded; a fuel guzzling monstrosity designed in a time where the german army barely had any of them left It is estimated that the absolute majority of Tiger II losses were caused by intentional crew abandonment because they simply became immobile, as moving the tank from the station to the frontline would chug up most of its fuel.
The Sherman and T34 was less impressive, but that isn't a negative for a tank, because they were reliable, had fairly good defences, and were consistently upgunned to meet the needs of the battle. They got shit done. Germans build their tanks with the assumption they could leisurely tow them back to their factories. The Sovjets had no time for that and the US didn't find it logistically feasible to bring tanks back to Detroit, as such, their tanks were build with reliability and ease of repair in mind. And as any military leader can tell you: In war, reliable equipment beats efficient equipment every fucking time. The Germans would've done a lot better iterating on the PzIV and Tiger 1 onwards than wasting resources, engineering time and factory space on the Panther, Tiger II and the fucking Maus, of all things. But the party demanded new shinies and their sycophant engineers eagerly complied, pushing out unproven design after unproven design while abandoning things that had proven their worth throughout the war.
Furthermore, the London Blitz was specifically done due to the percieved effectiveness of terror bombardment, which the Germans had also employed against Rotterdam and was used when they assisted in the Spanish Civil war. Why didn't it extend past London?
Well, simple answer: logistics. Germany expected the UK to be scared into signing a peace treaty with them, but instead the UK turned it around for propaganda and began bleeding dry their airforce, which is why by the time D-Day happened, allied AA vehicles were used for anti-infantry operations; there simply weren't any german aircraft left for them. This is not to say that they didn't have plans to do so; they were hoping to develop intercontinental bombers to target New York with, and had some prototypes ready, but nothing ever manifested because they already had the US knockin on their door. That being said, to make up for their lack of bombing fleets, they just used far less precise Vengeance missiles instead, which had questionable accuracy (11km deviation from impact at their peak) at best and were therefor used exclusively for terror bombing.
As for Japan; m8, Japan did bombing raids out the ass. Not only did a bombing raid of what was by warlaws a civilian target start their war with the US, they carried out the terror bombing of Chongqing in their war with China, and they extensively bombed Australia during 1942. Why did they stop? Well, the US simply controlled too much of the airspace from that point onwards and again, they had bigger concerns.
The nuclear bombings would've also been a lot less costly for human life than a ground invasion of Japan would've been. As it is said; the US is still using purple hearts stamped in anticipation for the Japan mainland invasion. There is no good or bad in war, only the simple practical of victory or oblivion, and any rules we percieve it as having are only ever followed if one thinks they can afford to.
Please if you wish to engage in revisionist history do first get a adequate understanding of the history you are advising, instead of underqualified dipshits from the discovery channel hyping up the Axis forces to the point that explaining their loss requires several layers of irony.
For the coof vaccine; no, can't shed it since it has no active viral components. My understanding is that it tricks protein factories in your bodies in printing out what are essentially the signature of the virus, so your white blood cells react on it without a viral component ever being active.
Vaccine shedding only happens with live-virus vaccines. it is, all by all, a massive public health concern, which is why vaccines are tested for shedding capabilities ever since the oral polio vaccine was shown to have this issue.
Though shedding in minor forms is relatively common (live viral vaccines show up in nasal excretions for a few days after injection for around 70% of cases), for the most parts its utterly ineffectual to non-immunocompromised individuals, because the live viral strain used in a vaccine is already heavily weakened.
Rebar has very little influence on the structural integrity of a skyscraper; almost all the load bearing is done by a steel framework. And if they simply bend out of their triangular setup, you are fucked and an entire floor will just instantly get crunched.
Perinatal + first semester. Table 3. And again, 3987 is the number of pregnant women who got the vaxx in March, 827 are the ones who got the vaxx in March AND saw their pregnancy end in the same timeframe. For someone in their first semester, this is also a fucking precondition to be part of the subselection. It is a subselection of the original sample, as the point of the study wasn't to check what it does to the fetus, just if pregnancy we excasserbates adverse effects from the vaccine (conclusion; yes, but so far it was statistically insignificant and a request for a larger study was issued).
Again, statistics. If ya can't fucking read em, shut the fuck up about "doing your own research"