A Covid Science Update

[TrailerHitch]

Yes, I am aware of the folks on here that think I'm an asshole. I was just discussing you....since you're the one I'm responding to

Compartmentalizing it so it is easier to handle. Gotcha.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Since you've had several, obviously the scope of the question was larger than your latest user creation.

Now, you're tap-dancing. I guess you did the search and came up null. Given the time frame and your imaginary plethora of names, that might have amounted to what? Two possible names?

 

[DeluxAuto]

Given the time frame and your imaginary plethora of names, that might have amounted to what? Two possible names?

Don't try that shit, Capn Aj. (there's two)

 

[ll74]

Now, you're tap-dancing. I guess you did the search and came up null. Given the time frame and your imaginary plethora of names, that might have amounted to what? Two possible names?

No matter, it was rhetorical. BB definitely has more and BiDudey had at least one a day....will be hard to overtake their crown. Then again, no one has ruled out that bidudey was another one of yours

The one who is tap dancing here is clear, AJ.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

You.

On a landmine.

 

[ll74]

You.

On a landmine.

Did you ever figure out the average retraction rate for scientific papers? Did you ever look?

Of course you didn't.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Interesting:

"The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19."

I was not vaccinated. I got Covid once. ONCE!!!



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full



[PS I contracted Covid long before there was a vaccine, so don't just knee-jerk cry,
anti-vax right-winger who put all of our lives at risk!!!]

So you cherry-pick an out of context line from a study that seems to bolster your preferred political narrative. Just for fun, let's look at what the authors of the study concluded.

This study found that the current bivalent vaccines were about 30% effective overall in protecting against infection with SARS-CoV-2, when the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 lineages were the predominant circulating strains. The magnitude of protection afforded by bivalent vaccination was similar to that estimated in a recent study using data from the Increasing Community Access to Testing (ICATT) national SARS-CoV-2 testing program [16].

I'd imagine this is an example of why some folks think you're intellectually dishonest as fuck.

 

[DeluxAuto]

So you cherry-pick an out of context line from a study that seems to bolster your preferred political narrative. Just for fun, let's look at what the authors of the study concluded.
I'd imagine this is an example of why some folks think you're intellectually dishonest as fuck.

https://media.tenor.com/qSaZkfNslQUAAAAd/slap-powder.gif

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Did you ever figure out the average rejection rate for scientific papers? Did you ever look?

Of course you didn't.

https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/radical-access/rejectionrates

But that wasn't the topic/issue now, WAS IT?

It was the withdrawal of ACCEPTED "PEER REVIEWED" papers, something you were touting not too long ago as the Holy Grail of truth in studies/research. It has to be true! It has to be fact! It was PEER REVIEWED!"

[Now he says: I never said that!]

 

[JoePepsiCo]

I'd imagine this is an example of why some folks think you're intellectually dishonest as fuck.

Everything you post is an example of you being nothing more than a garden-variety troll.

 

[phrodeau]

Interesting:

"The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19."

I was not vaccinated. I got Covid once. ONCE!!!



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full



[PS I contracted Covid long before there was a vaccine, so don't just knee-jerk cry,
anti-vax right-winger who put all of our lives at risk!!!]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/about-medrxiv

Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Somebody successfully fooled you.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/about-medrxiv

Somebody successfully fooled you.

No. You didn't read the whole article which later states, now that it has been peer-reviewed, nothing changed.

So, once again, you proudly display your stupidity.

 

[ll74]

https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/radical-access/rejectionrates

But that wasn't the topic/issue now, WAS IT?

It was the withdrawal of ACCEPTED "PEER REVIEWED" papers, something you were touting not too long ago as the Holy Grail of truth in studies/research. It has to be true! It has to be fact! It was PEER REVIEWED!"

[Now he says: I never said that!]

It was the retraction rate. My autocorrect made it rejection.

And your source doesn't provide that answer. And you still seem to assume that the retraction rate is high, without providing any comparative data that proves it.

By the way, you didn't say anything - you literally just copied what the author said. (Which wasn't that- the quote provided and the article both focused on retraction and led with the 300+ count as it's data point)

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Now, you're tap-dancing. I guess you did the search and came up null. Given the time frame and your imaginary plethora of names, that might have amounted to what? Two possible names?

For those of us trying to keep score at home can you list the accounts you’ve had banned so far?

 

[JoePepsiCo]

It was the retraction rate. My autocorrect made it rejection.

And your source doesn't provide that answer. And you still seem to assume that the retraction rate is high, without providing any comparative data that proves it.

By the way, you didn't say anything - you literally just copied what the author said. (Which wasn't that)

Learn to proofread.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Well, now it is peer-reviewed, and none of the conclusions have changed.

Via Open Forum Infectious Diseases:

The risk of COVID-19… varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19.

Same source.

 

[ll74]

Learn to proofread.

Eh.....the difference is minimal in context. It still is about conclusions you've made that aren't supported by the article or data you provided.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Tap dancing on a landmine...


See post above yours.

 

[ll74]

Tap dancing on a landmine...


See post above yours.

Less than one percent retraction rate isn't high. See your original post.

 

[phrodeau]

No. You didn't read the whole article which later states, now that it has been peer-reviewed, nothing changed.

So, once again, you proudly display your stupidity.

You linked to an archived version of the preprint, and not the current one. Why was that?

 

[zipman]

Show me where on the doll the covid vaccine hurt you.

 

[DeluxAuto]

JoePesico, an anti-science dufus who got COVID multiple times from not listening to scientists touting the science of COVID is funny.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Everything you post is an example of you being nothing more than a garden-variety troll.

Like an arrow through my heart. A science-denying racist accused me of being a garden variety troll. Oh, woe is me.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Everything you post is an example of you being nothing more than a garden-variety troll.

Garden variety trolls get ban hammered multiple over multiple decades only to come back as more bitter but less effective garden variety trolls.

Proper trolls strike within the rules and stomp the garden variety trolls with little effort but with great impact.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[HisArpy]

Like an arrow through my heart. A science-denying racist accused me of being a garden variety troll. Oh, woe is me.

A little less woe would be nice. Or even its total absence.