Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="expos4ever" data-source="post: 76850744" data-attributes="member: 233757"><p>An <strong>actual counterargument</strong> to the clear argument from the Reuters article is conspicuously absent from your post. You are asking readers to take <strong>your</strong> word over the word of a <u>qualified medical expert</u>. Here is a quote from the article:</p><p></p><p><em>Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor of Biostatistics at the University of Florida, understood why the ARR numbers might have confused users on social media and explained why the RRR is the “usual scale” considered by the medical community when talking about vaccine efficacy.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>“Because (the ARR) is a much lower number, it feels like </em>i<em>t is saying that the other number (RRR) isn’t true,” but this is not accurate, “they are both capturing some aspect of reality, just measuring it in a different way,” she told Reuters via telephone.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><strong>Vaccine efficacy, expressed as the RRR means the vaccine will reduce the risk of infection by that reported percentage irrespective of the transmission setting. “It is more meaningful</strong>,” she said.</em></p><p></p><p>Trying to mislead readers by citing the ARR is one of the many arrows your disinformation quiver.</p><p></p><p>Another being the highly misleading claim that vaccine mandates are not effective - a drum you have beaten to death in other threads.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="expos4ever, post: 76850744, member: 233757"] An [B]actual counterargument[/B] to the clear argument from the Reuters article is conspicuously absent from your post. You are asking readers to take [B]your[/B] word over the word of a [U]qualified medical expert[/U]. Here is a quote from the article: [I]Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor of Biostatistics at the University of Florida, understood why the ARR numbers might have confused users on social media and explained why the RRR is the “usual scale” considered by the medical community when talking about vaccine efficacy. “Because (the ARR) is a much lower number, it feels like [/I]i[I]t is saying that the other number (RRR) isn’t true,” but this is not accurate, “they are both capturing some aspect of reality, just measuring it in a different way,” she told Reuters via telephone. [B]Vaccine efficacy, expressed as the RRR means the vaccine will reduce the risk of infection by that reported percentage irrespective of the transmission setting. “It is more meaningful[/B],” she said.[/I] Trying to mislead readers by citing the ARR is one of the many arrows your disinformation quiver. Another being the highly misleading claim that vaccine mandates are not effective - a drum you have beaten to death in other threads. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital
Top
Bottom