User Info
visitor_
Seniority: 30
Private E-mail
Joined 2005/09/23Visited 2025/06/06
Status: user
Subscribe
Menu
Front Page Breaking News Comments Flagged Comments Recently Flagged User Blogs Write a Blog Entry Create a Poll Edit Account Weekly Digest Stats Page RSS Feed Back Page
Special Features
The usual suspects. The only way to find vote fraud is to look for it.
Read More Entries By visitor_
No C programmers were polled.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-23 02:50 PM | Reply
Sorry I fat fingered it. I've gained a lot of weight because every time I ---- your mom she makes me a sandwich.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-22 09:12 PM | Reply
Wow statistically insigniicant much?
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-22 07:38 PM | Reply
JPW could you explain the science behind vaccinating six month old babies for Covid? Please include links to covid vaccine drug trials for infants.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-22 03:13 PM | Reply
One cause of our lower quality of care may be due to our poor allocation of resources. #BigPharmaAlwaysGetsWhatTheyWant
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-22 12:47 PM | Reply
We're using science and our policy will be similar to matches the rest of the first world. If you feel bad for Pfizer send them your spare change. #myocarditis
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-22 12:41 PM | Reply
Why wait? You have been gleefully threatening kill fellow Americans for years. That's Nazi.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 09:07 PM | Reply
All vaccines are not equal.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 08:09 PM | Reply
Sure why not. The insignificant benefit is worth the significant expense (for Pfizer shareholders).
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 07:50 PM | Reply
Snoofy, that's actually a reasoned argument. I wonder how many six month old babies have asthma, cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, lung disease, diabetes, disabilities, heart conditions, mental health conditions, dementia, Parkinson's, obesity, pregnancy, physical inactivity, smoking.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 01:06 PM | Reply
"Certainly having two tickets is double the chances of hanging just one ticket." #116 | Posted by snoofy
Thanks for backing me up and restating what I already stated, bro!
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 12:53 PM | Reply
Speaksoftly is smarter and has better knowledge and assessment of risk than 70% of healthcare workers?
"...American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations." Sorry Speaksoftly.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 12:45 PM | Reply
"...American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations." Sorry Donnerboy.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 12:43 PM | Reply
While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe Covid-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months.1 The U.S. policy has sometimes been justified by arguing that the American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations.
Based on arguments here I agree with "...American people are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations." Sorry Sally.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 12:34 PM | Reply
From the New England Journal of Medicine.
"Even health care workers remain hesitant, with less than one third participating in the 2023"2024 fall booster program."
www.nejm.org
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 12:30 PM | Reply
Snoofy, I was quoting gaslighter. The question was for Danforth not you and google. Danforth do you understand that a number slighty larger than 0 is not infinitly larger than zero? If the odds of winning with one ticket are 1 in a billion, what are the odds with 2 tickets? Anyway, the risk of dying from covid for healthy people under 50 is low.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 03:37 AM | Reply
That's only true for non negative numbers. But it still doesn't make gaslighter's statement correct. Here's one for you. Is 1 greater than 0.999... repeating?
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-21 03:03 AM | Reply
Gaslighter explain how a number slighty larger than 0 is infinitly larger than 0.
"If you buy one lottery ticket, your chances of winning are infinitely higher than if you buy none."
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 09:41 PM | Reply
Gaslighter, you are a math illiterate.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 08:41 PM | Reply
Risk of death from covid is going down and so are vacination rates. Only 30% of healthcare workers are following CDC guidlines. Covid is over.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 07:16 PM | Reply
You got a five point restraint harness and rollbar in your Subaru? Always wear a helmut when driving it? What's your risk number? I don't know mine, I just know there is one.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 07:11 PM | Reply
You 2.46 number is based on current Covid variants?
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 06:43 PM | Reply
#78 If you buy two lottery tickets your chances of winning are 200% higher than if you buy only one. But not that much higher someone that buys none.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 06:35 PM | Reply
#71 Screening finds cancer early lowering the rate of death. So why don't we screen female babies at six months? Why don't we (as gaslighter belives) screen men and women? Screening works, why not screen everybody every day? You don't seem to understand the concept of cost/benefit and diminishing returns. You may have an advanced degree, but your education is still lacking.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 06:32 PM | Reply
You know the vaccine doesn't provide 100% protection from covid don't you? Maybe you don't and then your arguments make more sense.
Posted by visitor_ at 2025-05-20 06:25 PM | Reply
Read More By visitor_
Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy
No C programmers were polled.