Those fully vaxxed account for most of the new COVID cases in Quebec

no color

Electoral Member
May 20, 2007
347
96
28
1967 World's Fair
I knew it. The vaccine is doing nothing to bring the case count down. People who were naive or gullible enough to trust the government just got burned. Thankfully I’m fortunate enough to be living in Quebec where my trust level for the provincial government is at zero percent. I cannot trust a government that’s hell bent on eliminating all of my individual rights through Bill 96. I’d have to be insane to place my health and safety in the hands of this government. As a result, I have not been vaccinated. Worked out well for me.

Of Quebec's 2,736 new cases, 1,591 were fully vaccinated.

Those fully vaxxed account for most of the COVID cases in Quebec
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,356
3,097
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
CTV is Alex Jones?


Of Quebec's 2,736 new cases, 1,591 were fully vaccinated.
I’m too lazy to look up actual stats, but assuming that about 80% (?) of that population is fully vaccinated….with the numbers above….then those 80% vaccinated account for less than 60% of new cases, & the 20% of the population accounts for more than 40% of new cases.

Just mathing is all. Doesn’t this prove that the vaccine’s are effective in decreasing the odds of catching this pestilence? Not addressing the severity of symptoms or what have you, but just the 1591/2736 thing.

If the vaccine wasn’t effective, then the 80% of the population fully vaccinated should account for about 80% of new cases, & the 20% of the population that’s unvaccinated should account for about 20% of new cases, right?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,356
3,097
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I knew it. The vaccine is doing nothing to bring the case count down. People who were naive or gullible enough to trust the government just got burned. Thankfully I’m fortunate enough to be living in Quebec where my trust level for the provincial government is at zero percent. I cannot trust a government that’s hell bent on eliminating all of my individual rights through Bill 96. I’d have to be insane to place my health and safety in the hands of this government. As a result, I have not been vaccinated. Worked out well for me.



Those fully vaxxed account for most of the COVID cases in Quebec
Just using the numbers in the above link, it reads that you’d be MORE than TWICE as likely to test positive to test positive for this Covid unvaccinated as opposed to fully vaccinated…& now with about 80% of that population being fully vaccinated, the difference this time is lower hospitalizations rates. Huh…that reads like the vaccines are doing something.

If the unvaccinated 20% in the above quoted population account for more than 40% of new cases…what would the case count be without these vaccinations that are doing nothing to bring down case counts?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,137
5,006
113
B.C.
Just using the numbers in the above link, it reads that you’d be MORE than TWICE as likely to test positive to test positive for this Covid unvaccinated as opposed to fully vaccinated…& now with about 80% of that population being fully vaccinated, the difference this time is lower hospitalizations rates. Huh…that reads like the vaccines are doing something.

If the unvaccinated 20% in the above quoted population account for more than 40% of new cases…what would the case count be without these vaccinations that are doing nothing to bring down case counts?
Regardless it still shows that the fully jabbed ( they are not vaccinations ) are not fully protected . What is the purpose of jabs ?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,026
4,193
113
Vancouver Island
Regardless it still shows that the fully jabbed ( they are not vaccinations ) are not fully protected . What is the purpose of jabs ?
There is the real problem. It seems the majority of low information voters believe this is a vaccine because the media told them so. Worse, they think it will work as well as the polio vaccine did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,137
5,006
113
B.C.
No vaccine I'm aware of has ever achieved a 100% protection rate.
It should provide some protection . Looking at all the major sports postponing games because of Covid outbreaks among the fully jabbed makes one suspicious of the effectiveness . certainly not close to 100% . What is an acceptable protection rate ?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,137
5,006
113
B.C.
There is the real problem. It seems the majority of low information voters believe this is a vaccine because the media told them so. Worse, they think it will work as well as the polio vaccine did.
Yes the first response from many people is you got your polio shot didn’t you . Even now after the effectiveness of these not vaccines are being questioned .
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,232
3,179
113
Washington DC
It should provide some protection . Looking at all the major sports postponing games because of Covid outbreaks among the fully jabbed makes one suspicious of the effectiveness . certainly not close to 100% . What is an acceptable protection rate ?
"Better with than without" works for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,356
3,097
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Regardless it still shows that the fully jabbed ( they are not vaccinations ) are not fully protected . What is the purpose of jabs ?
OK. Mathing again.....using the numbers & info from the LINK in the OP.....those fully vaccinated are less than 1/2 as likely to be in the group currently testing positive for this newest wave/strain compared to the unvaccinated, & with lower hospitalizations rates. So I'm assuming that would be the purpose of 'jabs'.
 

no color

Electoral Member
May 20, 2007
347
96
28
1967 World's Fair
Those folks who were gullible enough to trust the government when told that their lives would return to normal upon getting fully vaxxed only have themselves to blame. Not being allowed to see a hockey game and discouraged against international travel is not my idea of things returning to normal. So despite being fully vaxxed, the government is still penalizing these folks. It doesn’t get any worse.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,356
3,097
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
It should provide some protection . Looking at all the major sports postponing games because of Covid outbreaks among the fully jabbed makes one suspicious of the effectiveness . certainly not close to 100% . What is an acceptable protection rate ?
Yes, it should provide some protection...which it does. "Of Quebec's 2,736 new cases, 1,591 were fully vaccinated" which tells me with 1591/2736 of these cases being in the fully vaccinated....that 1145 new cases are in the unvaccinated. Again with Quebec's population numbers in the OP, 81% of their Population is fully vaccinated (or 'jabbed' if you will) accounting for 58% of these new cases....where as the 19% of the unvaccinated population thus accounts for 42% of the new cases of this disease. This is grade school math. Doesn't this jump out at you?

Looking at all the major sports postponing games because of Covid outbreaks among the fully jabbed makes one suspicious....but of what? The vaccinations themselves or the walking Petri Dishes that are the unvaccinated providing breeding grounds for this virus to thrive & mutate in, in order to reinfect the rest of the population again in wave after wave?

What is an acceptable protection rate? That is an excellent question! What is an acceptable protection rate? 100% would be great, but here we are. How about obvious proof that it's making a difference & lowering the infection rate to below the 1:1 ratio that will make this disease rare (81:58 = 1.4:1 fits this by the way) instead of the 19:42 = 1:2.2 which makes this very transmission-able. Does this make sense?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,356
3,097
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
81:58 = 1.4:1 means the infectious rate is going down. This is a good thing & what we want.
19:42 = 1:2.2 means the infectious rate is going up. This is a bad thing & what we don't want.

Using the numbers from the OP as an example....in the vaccinated population in Quebec....if 100 of these people have Covid and before they're well they'll infect 72 people....& before they're well they'll infect 52 people....and before they're well they'll infect 37 people...see the trend?

Again, using the numbers from the OP as an example....in the un-vaccinated population in Quebec....if 100 of these people have Covid and before they're well they'll infect 220 more people....& before they're well they'll infect 484 more people, and before they're well they'll infect 1065 people...see the trend?

Looking at the above, how would this affect Borders & Hockey games & hospital admissions?
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,356
3,097
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
81:58 = 1.4:1 means the infectious rate is going down. This is a good thing & what we want.
19:42 = 1:2.2 means the infectious rate is going up. This is a bad thing & what we don't want.

Using the numbers from the OP as an example....in the vaccinated population in Quebec....if 100 of these people have Covid and before they're well they'll infect 72 people....& before they're well they'll infect 52 people....and before they're well they'll infect 37 people...see the trend?

Again, using the numbers from the OP as an example....in the un-vaccinated population in Quebec....if 100 of these people have Covid and before they're well they'll infect 220 more people....& before they're well they'll infect 484 more people, and before they're well they'll infect 1065 people...see the trend?

Looking at the above, how would this affect Borders & Hockey games & hospital admissions?
Looking at these ratios (I could present these as fractions if it would make things easier), if the vaccinated population increases so that the unvaccinated population decreases proportionally, how would that affect the ability of this virus to randomly mutate creating new strains to reinfect to population in another wave???

Didn’t anyone actually read through the LINK in the OP? Admittedly I was too lazy to yesterday but have since then, & thus using the %’age of 81% today instead of a guess at 80% yesterday.