There is 0 explanation or context to this data. This is a great example of an irresponsible social media influencer spreading unhelpful and potentially false information. Great work as always JP.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
¿Is your fighting spirit coming back, Mr Peterson?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s correct but can be misleading to a growingly confusing public opinion. What’s key is not the % reduction of risk of infection, but how severe is the outcome when a person is infected with COVID-19 while having versus not having received the jab.
-
If that’s true then why the hysteria over vax vs unvaxxed? It’s supposed to be all about the risk to others. That’s the claim.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And yet our hospitals are overwhelmed. Maybe that’s the more important issue? How can such a tiny number of sick people have the ability to break the back of our healthcare system?
-
Are they?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Please tell me that Dr Peterson is not aligned with anti-vax propoganda.
-
Doubt it. Nothing to indicate that in the last 10 years.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah it's proactive, but still accurate. This is a common tactic used in statistical analysis. Relative risk reduction is easily manipulated through their methodology and selection bias. There is a good book called "How to Lie with Statistics" that further details how its done.pic.twitter.com/j0NmGp4aDu
-
Makes me wonder: Who were those half million copies sold to? Is that lying with statistics as well? Would be fitting for a book with this title.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.