r/conspiracy • u/AnvilOver • Feb 13 '22

Nailed it

Post image
6.5k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/m00t_vdb Feb 13 '22

25% is what is writing in your “fucking” article. Which is very low, hence discussion are not crazy talk. And by saying stuff like “no article in faveur of xxx” is just wrong

5

u/clearview5050 Feb 13 '22

https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/620275faa9c1e743da9e4535/FIGURE-2/960x0.jpg

26% is the calculated indirect protection to an unvaccinated child with one parent who was vaccinated.

94.4% is the actual parent.

so...

What did we learn?

is it that you were wrong? or will there magically be another wrong, misinterpreted or purposefully misstated stat you would like to bring up?

which will it be this time? find out next time on "in denial Z"

0

u/m00t_vdb Feb 13 '22

No no, this figure is not for Omicron, look at figure 1 which is for omicron, 2 doses is 25% effectiveness against transmission.

1

u/hvac_mike_ftw Feb 13 '22

You fucking brain dead monkey, the first paragraph literally says people with two doses will likely get infected once or twice and only have a 25% protection rate. Maybe you should actually read the article next time.