ThLT

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. I've studied science at college. The Lancet study statistic is already a percentage. You and the other guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.... taking a percentage, and then making another percentage based on that percentage is misleading and disingenuous. Exactly like I said earlier: if the Lancet study would have said 1% for vaccinated and 14% unvaccinated, I'm sure you would jump on a chair and say "vaccines are 1,400%!!!! more effective at preventing transmission/infection!!!!!!!!" ????

Did you even read the study? Again, same as @heybruce above. You take something that is already a proportion/percentage, and misleadingly make a second proportion. The difference in protection against transmission/infection is 13%. Here:

Math is not your best subject. And it's disingenuous on your part to make use of a second proportion to show the effectiveness of vaccines against transmission/infection. You say "vaccines are 150% more effective than not being vaccinated." Which is true, but that is entirely meaningless without taking into consideration that: the rate of infection/transmission is 38% for unvaccinated and 25% for vaccinated. An only 13% difference. If the Lancet study would had said 1% for vaccinated and 14% unvaccinated, I'm sure you would have jumped on a chair and said "vaccines are 1,400%!!!! more effective at preventing transmission/infection!!!" ???? Exactly my point.

I'm pro-vaccine (like you). Yet the things you've said in this thread are in fact extreme, not scientific and not rational.

So? That just shows that the vaccines help protect against becoming seriously ill or death. Which I agree with and which has been proven. Nothing to do with transmission and infection. Your math is all wrong. ???? It's already a proportion. You can't take a proportion and then do a second proportion. ???? Rate of infection in The Lancet study was 38% for unvaccinated and 25% for vaccinated. That's a 13% difference. Which is an insignificantly small difference. Exactly like the study says:

The serious flaw in your example is that the measles vaccine does protect against transmission and also infection. Not COVID vaccines. So your argument (and extremist point of view) doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Are you saying all people who aren't vaccinated are thrashing vaccination centres? What percentage of anti-vaxxers are doing that? Only a handful of people in the whooooole entire whole world? ????

No one is talking about those loonies. We're talking about vaccine inefficiency for transmission/infection... and especially the unjustified hate thrown at unvaccinated for false and unscientific-supported reasons.

From what I understand, many of the pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine are equally hysterical.

The study is right there. Why not support your claim with a quote? ???? Is what you said even in the study? ????

According to a study published in The Lancet, one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, vaccines are only around 13% more protective against infection/transmission: What is the vaccine effect on reducing transmission in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant? - The Lancet Infectious Diseases So whether you are anti or pro-vaccine, this whole charade/witch hunt is entirely based on emotion, rather than rational thought and scientific fact.

Financial explanation: Crypto is basically a zero-sum game, and people in crypto making gains swing trading it need more people to join add more money to the pot—so that inexperienced people in trading can lose money (which is most people who get started in crypto). The more inexperienced people lose money in crypto, the larger the crypto pot/market cap becomes—and the more gains are possible for those that know what they're doing. That's how crypto is at the moment. And why so many try to advertise it and hype it up.

Don't have that much against crypto. Apart that it consumes the amount of electricity of entire countries. And many coins are scams, along with there being a lot of pump-and-dump, price manipulations, etc. Like Christians or Mormons trying to convert people, I do dislike crypto evangelism, and advertising crypto everywhere they can plug it in. Again, crypto okay, advertising/evangelizing not so much.

No, it wasn't honest. The post you replied to wasn't even addressed to you. You just replied to troll and mock: What about you, what visa are you on? How do you earn money? If I'm a young man, how old are you?

The example, like the definition, doesn't work. It's much more like: there are currently 7000+ crypto coins, and in the next 10-20 years, 99.99% of those will crash and be eradicated, with only a few left—of which millions people will lose all or most of their money (and a lucky few will make a ton of money).

Yes, cryptocurrency needs blockchain/cryptography... but blockchain/cryptography can exist entirely separate from cryptocurrencies. Your response was that crypto currencies and blockchain/cryptography aren't different things... which is obviously false.

There can be blockchain without it being cryptocurrency. So, yes, they are two different things. A car motor and a steering wheel are different things, even if a car requires both.

Thank you. ????

Cyptos are fixed, exactly like gold, which is almost entirely fixed/finite. That was the intention of Satoshi Nakamoto. To make "digital gold."

Crypto is fixed? Unlike gold? ???? Unlike oil? ???? There isn't a fixed/finite amount of gold, and especially oil on this planet? ????????????

The point is that you are the kind of person panicking to buy 1 ton of rice, because you tell yourself that there are only 21 million tons left, and 70 million people in Thailand. Because you don't seem to understand that tons can be divided into bags. Exactly like the false scarcity of 21 million Bitcoins, to incite FOMO that "there are only 21 millions coins, buy now before they are all gone!" Since each individual BTC can be divided into individual Satoshis/0.00000001 BTC. There is no scarcity. It's just a FOMO tactic. The more BTC increases in monetary value, the more the 1 BTC unit of measurement becomes irrelevant. At a certain point—exactly like at the moment—people will be talking more and more in Satoshis—of which there can be 2,100,000,000,000,000 (2.1 quadrillion). In the future, theoretically, exactly like 1 BTC right now, 1 Satoshi (0.00000001 BTC) could be worth $36,000, meaning there would be 2,100,000,000,000,000 (2.1 quadrillion) units of BTC each worth $36,000 in circulation, rather than 21 million. The scarcity that there are only 21 million coins/units is a false scarcity.

Read it again: I guess you're the person who would be panicking if there would be only 21 million tons of rice left. Thinking: "I need to buy a ton before all the tons are gone!" Now replace with "BTC": I guess you're the person who would be panicking if there would be only 21 million BTC. Thinking: "I need to buy one BTC before all the BTC are gone!"

I repeat: I guess you're the person who would be panicking if there would be only 21 million tons of rice left. Thinking: "I need to buy a ton before all the tons are gone!"

It's like saying: there are only 21 million tons of rice left in Thailand (population: 70 million). "Hurry up! There are only 21 million tons left. 49 million people won't get to eat this week if we don't buy one of those 21 tons!!!"

Yes, there is. $0.01, and a few more decimal place in some cases.