If given the choice. I’d stick too not getting it. Especially in wake of this. If I had Covid that is.The clinic also recommended that peole should still get vaccinated.
Well they recommended the vaccination for people who have not been infected. Some increase in cardiac inflamations in males 19- 50 years old after 2nd shot reportedIf given the choice. I’d stick too not getting it. Especially in wake of this. If I had Covid that is.
They (Cleveland Clinic) also recently reported that 99.7% of COVID positives hospitalized were unvaccinated, but people will pick and choose what they want to believe even when it's from the same source.The clinic also recommended that people who have not been infected should still get vaccinated.
Sure. .. i guess you can not be infected, get infected and survive and have a natural immunity, or get vaccinated - what did I miss ?They (Cleveland Clinic) also recently reported that 99.7% of COVID positives hospitalized were unvaccinated, but people will pick and choose what they want to believe even when it's from the same source.
You didn't miss anything. I was agreeing with you.....unvaccinated people made up 99.7% of the hospitalized Covid patients at CCF, but people won't believe that. But they will believe the CCF when they say if you've had covid you don't need to be vaccinated.Sure. .. i guess you can not be infected, get infected and survive and have a natural immunity, or get vaccinated - what did I miss ?
that's easy to believe as a headline because it makes sense logically. needs proper context to have any real meaning. what was the time period when they reported this? was the vaccine widely available at that time? how many patients did they actually count to arrive at this figure? 10? 100? 10,000? how long did they count up these hospitalized covid patients? a week? a month? 6 months? just meaningless numbers without context, which is the game the government and media has been playing for over a year now. stupid people don't think twice about it. some smart people don't, either.They (Cleveland Clinic) also recently reported that 99.7% of COVID positives hospitalized were unvaccinated, but people will pick and choose what they want to believe even when it's from the same source.
Both are just headlines. Neither has any substantial detail, but people will believe whatever fits their narrative. BTW, I do not think anyone who was positive needs vaccinated.that's easy to believe as a headline because it makes sense logically. needs proper context to have any real meaning. what was the time period when they reported this? was the vaccine widely available at that time? how many patients did they actually count to arrive at this figure? 10? 100? 10,000? how long did they count up these hospitalized covid patients? a week? a month? 6 months? just meaningless numbers without context, which is the game the government and media has been playing for over a year now. stupid people don't think twice about it. some smart people don't, either.
I wasn't going to waste the time to look this up, as I didn't think it would make a difference. But I guess at least you can see I wasn't just pulling numbers out of my ass.Nearly all — 99 percent — of COVID-19 patients at Cleveland Clinic at the beginning of the year weren't fully vaccinated, preliminary data shows.
The data includes about 4,300 COVID-19 admissions between Jan. 1 and mid-April.
A separate set of data looking at nearly 2,000 hospital employees who had contracted COVID-19 shows a similar trend, with 99.7 percent of infections among unvaccinated individuals.
"This vaccine is highly effective to prevent our community from getting sick, not only our caregivers but the community. We have data on both," Eduardo Mireles, MD, director of the medical intensive care unit at Cleveland Clinic, said in a May 12 news release. "It cannot be more clear the message that vaccines work and it's the key action that we need to do to get back to our normal lives as they were before coronavirus."
The research team is currently preparing the data for submission to a medical journal.
Latest articles on public health :
I wasn't going to waste the time to look this up, as I didn't think it would make a difference. But I guess at least you can see I wasn't just pulling numbers out of my ass.
didn't think it you were spewing random numbers, and didn't mean to imply anything about you personally at all. don't doubt that it's a true figure, but numbers don't mean much, to me anyway, without facts to support them.I wasn't going to waste the time to look this up, as I didn't think it would make a difference. But I guess at least you can see I wasn't just pulling numbers out of my ass.
Questioning authority isn't conspiratorial, it's prudence.Well your original statement was spot on. Thanks -- Seems it always a conspiracy for some
Didn't take it that way. And statistics can certainly be manipulated. My point was simply that many people....no one specific, will read headlines and accept them as fact along as it fits their belief. Most people aren't going to take the time to read the study, look at the sample size, know if it was blinded or not What was the primary end point, who was the PI. Was it peer reviewed before publication. They just see something that supports their view and they run with it.didn't think it you were spewing random numbers, and didn't mean to imply anything about you personally at all. don't doubt that it's a true figure, but numbers don't mean much, to me anyway, without facts to support them.
Questioning authority isn't conspiratorial, it's prudence.
failing to recognize the subterfuge employed all along the way for the last year and half is as naive and credulous as a person can
No offence intended -
And even with such info, people can be educated and pick two opposite choices. All how we interpret what facts/studies/etc we read and how we apply them to our personal situations. Isn't this country great?Didn't take it that way. And statistics can certainly be manipulated. My point was simply that many people....no one specific, will read headlines and accept them as fact along as it fits their belief. Most people aren't going to take the time to read the study, look at the sample size, know if it was blinded or not What was the primary end point, who was the PI. Was it peer reviewed before publication. They just see something that supports their view and they run with it.
Yes it is - the truth is out there somewhere - dangAnd even with such info, people can be educated and pick two opposite choices. All how we interpret what facts/studies/etc we read and how we apply them to our personal situations. Isn't this country great?