"...occupying invader robbing, murdering to take more..." Wait a second, how do you define occupying? Because palestinians claim the land "from the river to the sea" and do not want to recognize a "zionist state". However, a palestinian state never existed... What did exist was the ottoman empire, then the "British mandate for Palestine" whose mission was to create 2 seperate states. One palestinian, one jewish. The UN's plan was never accepted by the palestinians, they went ot war and lost alot of land to Israelis. You see, to talk about occupation, you need agreed upon borders. Agreed upon borders do not exist because the palestians refused all proposed borders ever given to them.

CFR is defined as Confirmed Deaths divied by confirmed Cases. My only error (which I myself pointed out) is the percentage mark. it sould have been either 0.02 or 2%. Not 0.02%. I'm not asking about that, what I am asking you to back up is the "absent vaccination" part. You see, nothing you are posting here differs from what is repeated on national TV around the world. What is lacking from what pro-vax people repeat are facts that back up the claims.

So basically what you are saying is that it is too hard to answer simply? Well if you cannot communicate such an answer simply, and you need to basically say: "trust these experts", or "trust these studies that I'm not gonna explain to you simply, and not what you see with your own eyes", then do not be baffled when people choose to not listen to you. Because the stance you are taking is the stance of argumentation from authority, while in the age of the internet we are looking for scientific method. One were India's cases can be explained without claiming that the numbers are untrustworthy or it's too hard to answer etc.

I've personally seen ivermectin work in people close to me. So basically, in my own experience, I'll claim that it's probably your controlled studies that are untrustworthy. It wouldn't be the first time academia is used for a quick buck.

This is what the person making the claim should be doing. When someone states: "What is clear, though, is that the CFR or IFR, absent vaccination, is not 0.02%"., one would expect him to document why it is true, otherwise he is just stating a belief. You are lecturing me on single metrics and how one should interprit statistsics, but you yourself are just stating beliefs without backing up the claims. This is something pro-vaccine people do all the time and then state "science" as dogma without actually doing the science.

Oh, and they never answer uneasy questions like how India has done so well whithout high vaccine percentages, because that may mean that the actual science on ivermectin and doxycycline working may be true. And that, 'science' forbid, is akin to worshiping the devil in this pro-vaccine cult. =]

In other words I was correct in saying that your original claim that "What is clear, though, is that the CFR or IFR, absent vaccination, is not 0.02%" is not based in those numbers. You see, you like vaccines. You are supporting them. That is fine. But the numbers we are talking about here do not support them in any straightforward way.

I'm not claiming that it is clear that Absent X CFR would be higher though, correct? I would point the case of India though. 22% vaccination rate and ivermectin in their treatment protocol. CFR you say? 1.3% ...

Now I'm no doctor, but I do know statistics. You need a lot of mental gymnastics to do, to explain that one.

The Netherlands has a vaccination percentage of 68,63% and a CFR of 0.9%. Portugal has a vaccination percentage of 87,16% and a CFR of 1,7%. How is vaccination reflected in those numbers?

Do you see any consistently identifiable pattern as to why a country would have a lower CFR than one with a higher one? Because I am not seeing vaccinations as a consistently defining variable.

(My beef with vaccinations has nothing to do with actual medical results to be honest. I'm pretty sure they aren't useless. The thing I have against them is serialization of vaccines and "freedom passes", along with centralized digital money supplies. I'm no doctor, but I am an IT person. And that right there is a recipe for disaster. I would argue that an order of magnitude greater death rate still wouldn't be worth the slavery we are willfully submitting ourselves and our children to.)

Vaccination effectiveness is not reflected in the CFR or IFR numbers you are stating though, so your last claim isn't supported by these numbers (it just shows where you stand on vaccinations). Calculating IFR is a bit speculative, whereas CFR is not. It can be affected by testing methods, but it's remarkably stable worldwide. It's stable between different countries using different testing schemes, with differing vaccination statuses, within a reasonable margin of error. Check it out for yourself.

Early on, absence of testing ment CFR in Italy for example hit 14% which is alarming but also a meaningless metric. Those days IFR while speculative, would be a better metric. But nowadays with widespread testing, CFR is pretty stable, while IFR is still speculative.

My claim is that covid-19's fatality rate is pretty much the same regardless of country or the country's vaccination percentage. Fatality rate means deaths per total umber of cases.

You are talking about deaths per milllion. That stat may actually be a bigger number as you insist. It may be a smaller number. Whatever the case, it is totally irrelevant to what I am saying because your metric is accounting for a different thing. Deaths per million normalizes per population. A lightly hit small country may have a comparable death-per-million with a hard hit big country, Either way, it's beside my point.

That's irrelevant. Deaths per population shows mostly how hard a country is hit when averaging on 1 million. That could just mean that covid isn't wide-spread enough in that country. While death per total cases shows covid-19's fatality rate. Apples to oranges.

Those numbers are for deaths per million. That's a different stat than percent of deaths / total cases. Just divide deaths by cases and you should see that covid-19's death rate is unaffected by vaccination or countries much. I'm not arguing for or against here, just stating the numbers I'm seeing.

Bah,disregard this post, it's too early in the morning for divisions, haha

It's .02%. He missed an order of magnitutde. Pretty much the same in any country, regardless the vaccination status. While it is deadlier than influenza (0.001%) by a factor of 20, it's a far cry from the original 2% estimate we were hearing early on.

A 486 with 4mb of RAM was actually an above average PC when windows 95 was released.

A death certificate exists because a birth certificate exists. In an abortion the fetus was never given the chance to be born, so there is no case to close, no person in the registery to delete with a death certificate. You do not recognize an aborted child as life in current law. This is morally wrong. Your argument that every misscarriage would be treated as murder is not true. Firstly, not even every death of a person with a birth certificate is treated as a murder case. Natural causes aren't treated with a lot of legal overhead. Secondly, you can detect if a woman had an abortion, or if she had a misscarriage with reasonable enough accuracy not to convict an innocent person. Thirdly, even if every misscariage were to be investigated, that overhead is a good thing when you realize that abortion in most cases* is the murder of a life that would predictibly, produce a living person. So your argument is mostly: It would be legally complicated to criminalize abortion. To which my answer is: Rightfully so. It is legally complicated when you criminalize murder as well. Again, rightfully so.

*By saying "in most cases" I'm leaving out cases that endanger the mother or children that are products of rape (again psyhchologically endangering the mother etc). Those are corner cases where you can argue it is not murder, but something more akin to self defense. But those cases are far from the majority.

That 's like saying you want to legalize murder because if you don't, each person that dies would potentially be a murder case, making a funeral directors' job too risky....Misoprostol acid is detectable.

Even the argument that criminalizing abortion will force women to get risky abortions in the black market isn't a valid moral argument. Once you realize it is murder, it is like saying someone whose intent is to murder would have to turn to the underworld to get the job done.... well yeah, that's one of the consequences of making murder illegal...

Rape cases or pregnancies that endanger the woman's life are corner cases, just as self-defense isn't considered murder.

Windows 8.1 is actually quite good, especially on older hardware. Obviously you need to replace the start screen and windows 8 specific stuff like charms. But it's plenty quick on non-SSD setups and GPU's that don't support windows 10's requirements and fallback to software rendering on 10. Of course with linux you don't need to make the sacrifices, but for windows specific needs, I regularly recommend 8.1 over 10.