@4stroboy__ Stop posting misinformation.
Unvaxed 12x more likely to die than vaxed...IN NSW!

@不要发布错误信息。
未征税的12倍于未征税的12倍更可能死亡。。。在新南威尔士州！

@4stroboy__ Imagine 100% of people vaxed, then 100% of deaths would be vaxed.
This means vaccines don't work? NO!

@4stroboy_uuuu_uu_uu_uu_uu_u_u_u_u_u_u_u_u_u_u_________。
这意味着疫苗不起作用？不

@4stroboy__ Vast majority of vaccinations in NY were 6+ months ago.
Any time period since most people were vaxed is fine to use. Will show the same thing, vaxed far less likely to be hospitalized or die.

@4stroboy__________________________________。
自大多数人被抽离后的任何时间段都可以使用。将显示出同样的情况，VAX住院或死亡的可能性要小得多。

@4stroboy__ The last month you mean?

@你是说上个月？

@pyrmontvillage @walidgellad Not surprised

@瓦利德格拉德的皮尔蒙特村并不奇怪

@4stroboy__ I don't know what numbers you're referring to but historical data is less meaningful because people were getting vaxed over time.
Makes more sense to look at what is happening now. Even if not daily, then weekly or whatever.
It'll be the same. Unvaxed FAR more likely to die.

@我不知道你指的是什么数字，但历史数据意义不大，因为随着时间的推移，人们变得越来越无聊。
看看现在发生了什么更有意义。即使不是每天，也可以是每周或其他任何时间。
还是一样的。未征税的人死亡的可能性要大得多。

@pyrmontvillage @walidgellad Well, where is the quote where he said his product is useless?

@pyrmontvillage@walidgellad他说他的产品没用的那句话在哪里？

@4stroboy__ @Nutmeg031992 @CS_nft @spectatorindex No they're not (and this doesn't matter anyway)
We already established that vaccinated are getting infected at about the same rate.
Therefore deaths relative to infections would be about the same as deaths relative to population.

@4stroboy_uuu@Nutmag031992@CS_nft@CobstorIndex不，它们不是（而且这并不重要）
我们已经确定，接种疫苗的人感染率大致相同。
因此，与感染相关的死亡与与与人口相关的死亡大致相同。

@pyrmontvillage @walidgellad I'm pretty sure he didn't say that.

@我敢肯定他没有这么说。

@4stroboy__ @Nutmeg031992 @CS_nft @spectatorindex Let's put some numbers on it, assuming eligible NSW pop = 7 million, vax (1+) = 95%.
vaxed pop = 6.65 million
unvaxed pop = 0.35 million
vaxed deaths = 13 (2 per million)
unvexed deaths = 8 (24 per million)
>12x more likely to die if unvaxed.
Vaccines working.

@4stroboy_uuuu@Nutmag031992@CS_nft@CobstorIndex让我们把一些数字放在上面，假设符合条件的新南威尔士州pop=700万，vax（1+）=95%。
VAX pop=665万
未课税pop=35万
VAX死亡=13（百万分之二）
未经交配的死亡人数=8人（百万分之二十四）
&燃气轮机；12倍于未开刀死亡的可能性。
疫苗起作用了。

@4stroboy__ @Nutmeg031992 @CS_nft @spectatorindex No it isn't assuming that.
It is assuming that if vaccines did absolutely nothing (pure placebo), deaths/pop in the population would match deaths/pop in vaccinated (+/- statistical noise).
Reality: Deaths/pop in population > deaths/pop in vaccinated.
= Vaccines working

@4stroboy_uuu@Nutmag031992@CS_nft@CobstorIndex不，这不是假设。
假设如果疫苗完全不起作用（纯安慰剂），人群中的死亡/流行性感冒将与接种疫苗的死亡/流行性感冒相匹配（+/-统计噪声）。
现实：人口中的死亡/流行性感冒>；接种疫苗后的死亡/流行性感冒。
=疫苗有效

@4stroboy__ @Nutmeg031992 @CS_nft @spectatorindex No, the rate of death is not higher.
Again, 60% of deaths vaccinated, 95% of people vaccinated -> rate of death is LOWER.

@4stroboy___@肉豆蔻031992@CS_nft@Index不，死亡率并不高。
同样，60%的死亡病例接种了疫苗，95%的人接种了疫苗->；死亡率较低。

@4stroboy__ @Nutmeg031992 @CS_nft @spectatorindex BTW, these is about the same sort of ratio (for hospitalization) as the NYC chart. Vaccines work regardless of location.

@4stroboy_uuu@Nutmag031992@CS_nft@CobstorIndex顺便说一句，这与纽约市图表中的住院率差不多。疫苗在任何地点都有效。

@4stroboy__ @Nutmeg031992 @CS_nft @spectatorindex You just claimed that 95% of the (eligible) population has at least one dose.
Deaths are 60% vaxed.
60% < 95%
Unvaxed are 13x more likely to die by these numbers.
Vaccines are working.

@4stroboy_uuu@Nutmag031992@CS_nft@CobstorIndex您刚刚声称95%的（合格）人群至少有一剂。
60%的死亡是由暴力造成的。
60%<；95%
根据这些数字，未征税者死亡的可能性要高出13倍。
疫苗正在发挥作用。

@4stroboy__ @CS_nft @spectatorindex https://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@4stroboy@CS-u nft@Indexhttps://twitter.com/AeonCoin/s...

@4stroboy__ @Nutmeg031992 @CS_nft @spectatorindex Unvaxed in ages who would actually die is what? 3%?
Unvaxed in deaths is 40%.
Ratio 13x.
I'd say vaccines are working.

@4stroboy_uuu@Nutmag031992@CS_nft@CobstorIndex年龄未征税谁会真正死去是什么？3%?
未征税的死亡人数占40%。
比率13x。
我得说疫苗起作用了。

@4stroboy__ @CS_nft @spectatorindex I mean come on. This is from your own source: https://t.co/zIu5hHwUSu

@我是说来吧。这是您自己的来源：https://t.co/zIu5hHwUSu

@4stroboy__ @CS_nft @spectatorindex "children under the age of 12 do not catch COVID"
Completely false.
But feel free to come up with age-adjusted data which will show the same thing.
Vaccines work extremely well for preventing severe cases resulting in hospitalization or death, regardless of location.

@4stroboy__@CS_nft@considerindex“12岁以下儿童不会感染新冠病毒”
完全错误。
但请随意提出年龄调整后的数据，这些数据将显示同样的情况。
疫苗在预防导致住院或死亡的严重病例方面非常有效，无论发生在何处。

@pyrmontvillage @walidgellad Hospitalization vs. infection

@瓦利德格勒德皮尔蒙特村住院与感染

@4stroboy__ @CS_nft @spectatorindex No, you don't.
You're counting eligible, not entire population.

@4stroboy\uuu@CS\u nft@观众索引不，你没有。
你算的是符合条件的，不是全部人口。