Varbūt lirikas vietā būtu vērts padalīties ar pašiem datiem, vēlams, ne DIY Excel tabulu, bet atsauču uz avotiem veidā?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Pats var dabuut informaaciju ja ir zinkariiba. Tikai vajag to pieprasiit no SPKC jo vairs nav atrodaama vinju veblapaa. Lirika ir pareizaa vietaa.

Varu, pagaidam, dot Tev info par 17 un 18 ned.
17 ned:
New Cases 2,907 no kura 699 nevakcineeti, 89 daļēji vakcinēti, 808 būsterēti, 1311 pamatvakcinēti
18 ned:
New Cases 1,906, no kura 475 nevakcineeti, 56 daļēji vakcinēti, 554 būsterēt, 821 pamatvakcinēti.

seekojosha informaacija ir no SPKC:

1297,200 people have been fully vaccinated, of which 507,336 have received booster;

53,730 have started vaccination, but have not finished yet;

542,293 have not been vaccinated.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Punkti par populistiem un kartupeļiem joprojām nekur nav anulēti. Labāk "pieprasi no SPKC" informāciju par saslimšanas smagumu, hospitalizācijām, nāves gadījumiem un to sadalījumu tajos pašos populācijas griezumos un tad paskatīsimies, kuri no mums sastāda kontrolgrupu.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Cope.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Cope with what? Mana veselības situācija ir labāka, kā jebkad pēdējos 20 gados un turpina uzlaboties, pateicoties tehnokrātiem un ZTP. Ne specifiski vakcīnas dēļ, bet palielināta iespēja kovida noķeršanas gadījumā tikt cauri ar viegliem un nepaliekošiem simptomiem katrā ziņā palīdz.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

esmu sajusmaa par tevi - bet katram savs - and it looks like - according to the latest data I might be less likely to get infected. Let each man evaluate his own risk: how about that?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

according to the latest data I might be less likely to get infected

Nē, because you misinterpret data.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nope

(Reply to this) (Parent)

To info joprojam ir redzema. What else could affect hospitalisation and death? Age maybe? Vit D levels? Comorbidities and obesity? If there are higher rates in the boosted than the unvaccinated (which there currently are), then it could conceivably follow that the young, otherwise healthy who are fully vaccinated and/or boosted are more likely to catch (and spread) to older more vulnerable people.

I am not against the vaccine as a voluntary medical intervention for those who feel at risk - I am against coercion - especially on the young and fit. Hence the lirika.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Oh, coercion, right.

Kas attiecas uz komorbiditātēm un vecuma grupām, tad tās ir līdzīgas pie jebkuru infekcijas slimību riskiem, līdz ar to tās var norēķināt nost un dati priekš ikdienišķa apskata joprojām būs pietiekami akurāti.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Coercion... right!?

Es vairs nevaru... okay - we - without the QR code were banned from almost all places except product shops under a certain size. Told we couldn't work in a range of jobs - my daughter was told she wouldn't be able to play for club and country. Do you remember talk of the 'freedom doses'?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Don't bother. He's a textbook case of:

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

pats jutos demoralizeets.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I mean "Oh, coercion, right."

This kind of cunt is what... our new technocratic leader?

Where was this fucktard!? Disagree about data and details all you like, but "oh, coercion, right"? Good lord. This will follow me to the end of my days.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Morning, Mindbound. Let me be clear: disagreeing about the general framework of things does not make you a right cunt. However, disputing the existence of, or belittling the significance of the coercion that took place with such offhand condescension (the use of italics - the drawl of the 'right') is in my book - after all the has indisputably occurred - an act of obtuse cuntery.

Thank you for the example of seatbelts. It is a deeply flawed analogy in this context, but as you deleted your comment, it is possible you may have already come to this realisation yourself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

To those, who crave totalitarian governance there's no such thing as coercion. Only thing that matters is, who the coercers get to be. If it's our guys, great. If it's their guys - FASCISM!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Ja esi izdarījis savu izvēli un tā izrādījusies pareizākā no iespējamajām, tad kāpēc esi demoralizēts?

Ir cilvēki, kurus izglābt vairs nav iespējams. Kaut dakteri stāsta, ka "vakcīnu" sekas iespējams mazināt ar antioksidantiem, kas palīdz atbrīvoties no metāliem organismā. Un veselību palīdzot uzlabot ivermektīns, kas drīzākais saistīts ar ziņām par parazītiem ko izplata vakcinētie. Izmaiņas gēnos, cik lasīts, ir neatgriezeniskas.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Ja esi izdarījis savu izvēli un tā izrādījusies pareizākā no iespējamajām, tad kāpēc esi demoralizēts?
Because they will be back, I fear, this Autumn with more of the same.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

O, es esmu par 90% pārliecināts, ka tieši tā arī būs.

Vienkārši vajag tam sagatavoties līdz stadijai, ko darīt gadījumā, ja pie durvīm klauvē kōvidpolicija ar izvēli špricējies, vai brauc uz koncentrācijas nometni. Ideālā gadījumā neatrasties dotajā adresē :).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

If there are higher rates in the boosted

Falšs pieņēmums. Tu (apzināti?) izvairies ņemt vērā vispārējo vakcinēto/nevakcinēto proporciju sabiedrībai. Augot vakcinācijas aptverei, inficēto vidū pieaugs vakcinēto skaits, bet nevakcinēto skaits samazināsies - ne jau tāpēc, ka viņi ir labāk pasargāti, bet tāpēc, ka viņu kopējais skaits sarūk.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

According to the SPKC
Unvaccinated = 28.6% of total population
Boosted = 26.8% of total population
Vaccinated (not boosted) = 41.7% of total population

Week 18 Cases =
Unvaccinated = 24.9% of total cases [lower than 28.6%]
Boosted = 29.1% of total cases [higher than 26.8%]
Vaccinated = 43.1% of total cases [higher than 41.7%]

Week 17 Cases =
Unvaccinated = 24% of total cases lower than 28.6%]
Boosted = 27.8% of total cases [higher than 26.8%]
Vaccinated = 45.1% of total cases [higher than 41.7%]

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Un cik procenti no vakcinētajiem ir inficējušies? Cik procenti no nevakcinētajiem ir inficējušies?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Njemsim ned 17:

Cik procenti no nevakcinētajiem ir inficējušies? 699/542,293 (man liekas = 129/100,000)

Un cik procenti no vakcinētajiem ir inficējušies?

Bustereti: 808/507,643 (159/100,000)
Vakcineeti (bez bustera): 1,311/789,864 (166/100,000)

Ned 18:
Nevakcineeti: 475/542,293 88/100,000)
Bustereti: 554/507,643 (109/100,000)
Vakcineeti (bez bustera): 821/789,864 (104/100,000)

Viss dati no SPKC.

Bet paarbaudi. Es jau aizsuutiju, lai citi parbaudiitu. Iepejams, esmu shur tur kljudies.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Tu nesaprati. No visiem vakcinētajiem valstī kopā - cik procenti ir inficējušies?

Un no visiem nevakcinētajiem visā valstī - cik procenti inficējušies?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Es sekoju informaacijai no SPKC liidz taa informacija tika nonjemta pirms dazhaam nedeljaam (so week to week changes). Es tagad peetu pashreizeejo tendenci (current trends) no ned 13 - ned 18 ar info, ko pieprasiiju no SPKC.

Ja vajag info par to, cik procenti ir inficeejushies no nevakcineetajiem un vakcineetajiem visu sho laiku (kopsh vakcinaacijas sakuma), tad pasham tas buus jaaatrod. Gan jau kaut kur ir.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

A bez tā tavi spriedelējumi ir tufta, biedri. Jo es atkārtošu, ja visi būtu vakcinēti, visi inficētie būtu vacinētie, a nevakcinētā neviena. Te tas pats. A tu esi apmaldījies trīs priedēs - esi sajaucis, kas ir daļa no daļas, un kā salīdzināt dažādas daļas un to daļas. Tu beigu beigās apples and oranges uzskati par vienu un to pašu...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

How can an analysis of infection rates per vaccination status (that is per 100,000) be 'tufta'? If I analyse the trends, then I will see which group over the last few months has the highest infection rates (per 100,000).

For example, from the information I gave you for Weeks 17 and 18 (which I got from SPKC), can you tell me clearly and explicitly where I have gone wrong? After all, we have the total number for each group and the infected number per each group. Are you saying it is not possible to calculate the number/100,000 from this information?

Are you saying 699/542,293 is not 129/100,000? I mean I stand to be corrected, but that is what I get.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Math is a conspiracy theory.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Maybe - I just don't understand where he thinks I have gone wrong. I genuinely don't get why he can't see that it is possible to calculate trends concerning rates of infection according to vaccination status (per 100,000) over a period of time if we know a) the number of infections per group each week and b) the total number of each group. Maybe someone else could explain? If I have gone wrong somewhere: fine. I'm not a statistician, bet pagaidam...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

:bezmenov.jpg:
As i said, don't bother. They will double down on 2+2=5 forever now. Remember that chick (Hedera), who suddenly couldn't understand basic proportion calculations that is learned in primary school, when it didn't suit The Message. Yeah.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

oh - atceros kaut ko tam liidziigu! It was odd cos - as far as I understood - she has a PHD in being clever or something from Oxford University: might be wrong about that.

If your thesis is right, then the future is simply appalling. We are in a home for the .... I don't know the adjective: 'bewildered' doesn't cut it. Maybe 'terrified'? An Irish pagan I listen to from time to time claims the majority of people are mortified about not fitting in - which in this case is fitting in - maybe ostentatiously - with the current correct opinion about whatever is coming down the pipe (you wouldn't want to be an idiot, far-right, populist, conspiracy theorist with the brain of a potato - (think of all the people who will think you are an orrible cretin!). The only way you can resist this (without resisting for the sake of resistance) is by understanding reality as best you can - which often, as Orwell stated, is recognising 2 + 2 = 4.
Like I said, though: if I have fucked up in my calculations, just let me know (anyone reading this). I can take it. They will need some revision in any event as I am waiting for some more up-to-date data from the relevant institutions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I also ought to point out that SPKC was giving exactly this form of data (so-called 'tufta'), namely infection rates for each group (according to vaccination status) per 100,000.

Until they took it down.

Had they got confused among those three pine trees, too? someone should tell them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/international-vaccine-expert-geert-vanden-bossche-speaks-up-again

ap 29.min

submissed publika ir permanenti inficeejusies

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

šo būtiski noskatīties, nevakcinētie ir pēdējie, kas var ieviest pūļa imunitāti, bet mūsu nav pietiekami liela sabiedrības daļa. risinājums - plaša profilakse ar pretvīrusu hujakslovidiem (tas nenotiks) vai vīruss pats parūpēsies, lai nevakcinētie atkal ir mažoritāte. dabiskais balanss atradīs ceļu

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Tu jocīgi izrīkojies ar statistiku.

"New Cases 2,907 no kura 699 nevakcineeti, 89 daļēji vakcinēti, 808 būsterēti, 1311 pamatvakcinēti"

Jā - bet te jāskatās arī, cik daudz sabiedrībā ir vakcinētu un nevakcinētu. Kāda ir proporcija. Ja visi būtu vakcinēti, tad visi inficētie būtu vakcinēti, bet tas neļauj izdarīt secinājumu, ka inficējās tāpēc, ka bija vakcinēti.

Kā tu pats esi noskaidrojis, vakcinēto propocija sabiedrībā ir daudz lielaka nekā nevakcinēto proporija. Tāpēc šādi dati, kur inficētu vakcinēto ir vairāk nekā inficētu nevakcinēto, nav nekāds brīnums.

Tagad tev atliktu salīdzināt proporcijas, bet to jau tu nedarīsi, vai ne?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

See reply to your earlier comment. You can do the maths yourself. See what you come up with.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Jo lielāka iespēja kam?