pull down to refresh
7 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 22 Oct \ parent \ on: #NoKings Grand Rapids, Michigan 10/18/25 Politics_And_Law
moving the goalposts without providing any actual evidence that the benefits outweigh the negatives
I don't think you are scientific. I think you are ideological.
In fact, if you were born 40 years earlier you'd probably be an evangelical christian haha
I have provided evidence. What claims would you like me to provide more evidence about?
reply
I'd like you to offer convincing scientific evidence that the COVID-19 vaccination mandates and COVID lockdowns were a net benefit to society. You can define benefit, but make sure it's measurable.
reply
Anything else, science denier?
reply
"Here, we included 151 studies estimating the effectiveness of stay-at-home orders (electronic supplementary material, appendix A, Table S13), 119 of which found a substantial benefit resulting in a reduction of the reproduction number (Rt) [16,23,33,35,38,45,48,60–97], incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection [29,50,52,98–129] and mortality [107,116,130–143]."
reply
Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention
You don't know the first thing about science haha. To you science is a google scholar search, but you don't look at the methodology at all, because you're not capable. I also asked for net benefit but you present a single dimensional study that doesn't factor in costs.
It was nice talking to you but I think I'm wasting my time. It's a bit like talking to a religious zealot. Hope you have a nice day :)
reply