General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Simon Harris
Sky News Australia
comments

Comments by "Simon Harris" (@simonharris4873) on "COVID booster recommended after five months" video.

The unvaccinated are the ones tying up all the hospital resources at the moment. You don't think that's a problem?
1
@oldenshort1346 The worst part is, you might not be smart enough to comprehend why it makes no sense to draw such conclusions from household transmission data, but your Dr Charlatan is. He knows what he's saying is wrong, and he's saying it anyway. That's a disgrace.
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 Are you going to add case numbers to that equation? Or are you just going to pretend they're not relevant?
1
@arroeducarlion4990 Don't change the subject. Why should the government spend billions fortifying hospitals just because you couldn't be bothered to get vaccinated?
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 If that were in any way accurate, new case numbers would be falling dramatically. They're not. Anything else you’d like to know?
1
@stephanmaric6796 Yes, you have. Pity you had nothing to say.
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 I didn't say they were your numbers. You said they were estimated. What they actually were, is upper limits of estimated. The estimated were wrong. So are any conclusions you draw based on them.
1
@stephanmaric6796 Maybe you'll have something to say worth hearing when you grow up.
1
@AVRO filmvideo What ever you say, child.
1
@arroeducarlion4990 I did answer you. Were not spending billions on hospitals just because you're scared of needles.
1
@stephanmaric6796 That sounds like projection to me, child.
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 You do know what "estimate" means, don't you? They were wrong. Deal with it.
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 Doesn't sound like you do. If you did you wouldn't be conflating estimates with data. Maybe you just have NFI about anything.
1
@joshpalmer3754 You know those outbreaks would be a lot more frequent and lead to far not hospitalisations if unvaccinated people weren't restricted, right?
1
@FitMofo Sounds like projection to me, troll.
1
@UCmqmAlW7cSpw79kCnsZXOFg You want me to watch the same video which brainwashed you? No thanx.
1
@oldenshort1346 I don't pay any attention to"data" which can only be found in YT videos.
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 I'll take your attempt to change the subject as an admission you were wrong.
1
@joshpalmer3754 Wrong. The vaccinated are far less likely to spread Cv19. Many studies have confirmed this.
1
@aussie5468 What makes you think "actual" deaths are estimates?
1
@arroeducarlion4990 It might seem that way to you, but you count at a 2nd grade level and lie thought your teeth, so that means nothing.
1
@oldenshort1346 Then lost the actual source of the data.
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 You're not capable of a serious discussion. You draw conclusions which are obviously incorrect, and when this is pointed out to you, you refuse to admit you were wrong.
1
@aussie5468 Ok child, what ever you say.
1
@joshpalmer3754 You'd have a point if it said "can't reduce", but it says the exact opposite, so you don't. Nice try though. And as I said, there are many such studies. You may not have heard of them inside your echo chamber, but that's not to say they don't exist.
1
@positivepawpaw7564 Yes, your put downs and lies instead of facts are pathetic.
1
@lschnathorst Your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
1
@positivepawpaw7564 So you think the government should spend billions because you're too stupid to get vaccinated? WOW you're entitled. Maybe you should grow up, sack up and stop being such a snowflake.
1
@positivepawpaw7564 So stop you lie then
1
@positivepawpaw7564 Virological and serological kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant vaccine-breakthrough infections: a multi-center cohort study
1
@positivepawpaw7564 Vaccination with BNT162b2 reduces transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to household contacts in Israel
1
@positivepawpaw7564 Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission to household contacts during dominance of Delta variant (B.1.617.2), August-September 2021, the Netherlands
1
@positivepawpaw7564 There you go, that's 3 studies. Happy reading.
1
@positivepawpaw7564 Yes, "actual" deaths. The government doesn't estimate the number of deaths, they count the number of people who died to get the "actual" number.
1
@joshpalmer3754 But you can't name a single thing I'm wrong about.
1
@FitMofo So stop being ignorant.
1
@oldenshort1346 Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Know what that means?
1
@oldenshort1346 I just named 3 studies. Happy reading.
1
@FitMofo Read the 3 studies I just named, chump. That will explain why you're not getting a prize.
1
@oldenshort1346 You haven't replied to the 3 studies I posted which support my position, and I haven't replied to the zero studies you posted to support yours. Can you spot the difference?
1
@joshpalmer3754 You said there's not a single study which supports my position. I named 3 which do. In fact, the only thing you've offered to support your position is your own ignorance.
1
@joshpalmer3754 So you still can't point out where I'm wrong. I guess that means you're the one who's wrong.
1
@FitMofo You can't seriously believe that. Nobody could possibly buy l be that gullible. You must be trolling.
1
@joshpalmer3754 I supported my position. You didn't. Game over, you lose, thanx for playing.
1
@joshpalmer3754 What ever you say, hypocrite. If you can't support your drivel with evidence, then you're nothing but a pathetic, childish troll. On ya bike troll. 🏍
1
@joshpalmer3754 OK loser, what ever you say.
1
@joshpalmer3754 So is that what you do when someone proves you wrong, act like a silly little child?
1
@joshpalmer3754 Sure I did. You said there was no study, and I named 3. Then you went all immature and started repeating the same childish nonsense every post. At least I know how much of a loser you are now.
1
@oldenshort1346 You anti vaxxers and flat earthers are always telling people they're brainwashed. It means nothing.
1
@joshpalmer3754 There's that childishness we spoke about. You prove my point with every post.
1
@oldenshort1346 You're the one trying to pass off YT videos as evidence. Why would I want to watch the same video which brainwashed you? If I did watch it, they'd little doubt I would be able to spot complete and utter lies within the first few minutes.
1
@oldenshort1346 I looked at the first video you linked to. It didn't take long for the first misrepresentation of the truth to appear. "If this data is correct, and the vaccinated are spreading just as much as, or nearly as much as unvaccinated..." The data didn't say that. It clearly said "within the household". It made no claims what so ever to extra-household transmission. Why is that so important? Well, that's quite simple. There is no data to support the supposition that you can extrapolate extra-household transmission from household transmission. They're vastly different. Yet Dr Charlatan in your first video conveniently conflates them, as if they're interchangeable. Any conclusions he draws based on this conflation is dubious. He also claimed the household was "the place where you get the highest rates of spreading", which is quite misleading. It doesn't spread in the household. It stops spreading as soon as the household reaches local herd immunity. It actually "spreads" when someone leaves the household, goes out in public and mixes with a large number of people in different households. Looking at data for household spreading without considering extra-household spreading is disingenuous. If the vaccine makes someone contagious for a much shorter period of time, then they're far less likely to give it to a casual contact, but the likelihood of passing it to someone in their own household is still just as high. So the data he's using doesn't even refute the claims he says he's discrediting. That's why I don't bother to watch videos from conspiracy nutters. They ALWAYS contain misleading analysis of actual data, which only a fool would believe.
1
@oldenshort1346 LOL. I destroyed your BS video in the first 3 minutes, and that's the best you've got? You can't even refute a single point I made. 🙄 That's game, set and match buddy. You lose, thanx for playing. I think the flat earth society is looking for new members, and you'd be perfect.
1
@oldenshort1346 None of that is relevant. The studies were based on household transmission. You can't use that to draw the conclusions he does, no matter how you twist it. The vaccine reduces transmission through a reduction in contagion period. If vaccinated and you become infected, you're contagious for less time. That mean you come into contact with less people while you're contagious, and therefore expose it to less people. However, you don't come into contact with less people within your own household, as you come into contact with them every day. You're no less likely to pass it onto them. This is why his conclusions are flawed. You'll also notice the studies he mentioned do not draw these conclusions, only he does. Why? Because he's a lying charlatan, trying to push a false narrative. And you're right, I worded that out in 3 minutes. The real question is, why didn't you?
1
@oldenshort1346 Once again your childish retort fails to address the points I raised. Sounds like you don't have an argument. I thought the least you would do would be to attempt, however vainly, to demonstrate how household transmission data can be used to measure the effects on transmissions in the broader community. Perhaps you've finally realised how futile that would be, but aren't man enough to admit you were wrong.
1
@oldenshort1346 You wanted me to watch the stupid video. Well, I watched (un until the point I could see the glaringly obvious logical flaw), I critiqued it, and now you don't want to talk about it anymore. Typical anti vaxxer nutter. This is why I avoid watching videos like this as suggested by nut cases. They're always full of holes that the gullible fools who recommend them just want to ignore.
1
@oldenshort1346 No, I detected a massive flaw in his reasoning 3 minutes in, and didn't need to hear the rest, as nothing he said from that point on would matter. The data he is using cannot be used to draw the conclusions he's drawing. I've explained this flaw to you several times, and you refuse to discuss it. If you think I'm wrong in saying this, then tell me where. Explain how. It seems you can't, and think pointing out the fact that I didn't listen to the rest of his nonsense is enough to justify ignoring this point.
1
@oldenshort1346 Either explain why you think using household transmission data can be used to measure transmission in the broader community, or accept defeat and admit you were wrong.
1
@oldenshort1346 No, I didn't, liar. And if you want to accuse anyone of curry living days, it's your Dr Charlatan. He's the one ignoring s while plethora off studies which refute his conclusions. Conclusions he based on the barriers narrowest of data sets.
1
@oldenshort1346 Stop killing people with your lies.
1
@georgekordis4077 5 million dead, didn't help them.
1
@oldenshort1346 It doesn't matter how smart they are, or what their qualifications are. That's called argumentum ad verecundiam which is a logical fallacy. What matters is the method. And in this case, the method is flawed. I've pointed this flaw out to you many times, any you're yet to refute that. The vaccine reduces transmission by reducing the contagion period. This will have very little impact on household transmission rates, so pointing out the fact that household transmission rates are largely unaffected is meaningless. You need to look at the transmission rates in the broader community, there are many studies which do this, and almost all of them refute the findings of your Dr Charlatan. If you can't address that point directly, and wish to continue with with your childish personal attacks, then there's really nothing else to say. I do not see the point of continuing on with a battle of intellect with an obviously unarmed opponent.
1
@oldenshort1346 I certainly levitate above those who ignore or dispute the existence of the points I raise because they can't refute them, and those who think argumentum ad verecundiam makes for a valid argument, especially after they childishly and hypocritically accuse others of having "an Infantile brain". Waffle on as much as you like, the fact still remains; I've refuted the cornerstone of your argument, and you've completely ignored mine. How you see that as a win for you, I'll never know. BTW, I'm not disputing the findings of any peer reviewed paper. I'm disputing the illogical conclusions your Dr Charlatan is drawing from those findings. Yes, the vaccine does little to reduce household transmission, I've already agreed with that. But you can't use that to show it does little to reduce transmissions in general, which have vastly different mechanism. That's not logical. If I'm only contagious for 2 days, rather an 7, then I'm still going to give it to my wife, who I share a bed with every day, but I'm not going to give it to people I come in contact with on day 3, when I'm no longer contagious. Your failure to grasp, let alone address, this insanely simple concept leads me to suspect you're being deliberately ignorant.
1
@oldenshort1346 Straw man! That's not what I said. If you're contagious for 2 days, you'll probably give it to less people in the community then if you were contagious for 7 days. Agreed?
1
@oldenshort1346 That sounds like the response of someone with "an Infantile brain" who just realised why they're wrong, but can't admit it. Nice try troll.
1
@oldenshort1346 And I thought you wanted to have a rational discussion... LOL.
1
@oldenshort1346 You couldn't answer my hypothetical question, because you know the only answer you can give leads to me being right and you being wrong.
1
@oldenshort1346 You continue to ignore the fact that you cannot measure community transmission using only household data. The video you use as evidence even goes into detail about how these 2 methods of transmission are different. So obviously, it makes zero sense to use one to measure the other. I've tried to discuss this point with you, but you persist in avoiding it, resorting instead to childish personal attacks on every occasion. And you have the gall to call me a child? Really, that's just projection. The fact remains, a shorter contagious period with mean lower community transmission, but not necessarily lower household transmission, so your Dr Charlatan has deliberately chosen a dataset which is incapable of detecting the change he's claims to be measuring, then claiming there is no change, all the while ignoring other datasets which do indeed highlight that change. At 12:06 he says "Vaccine ineffectiveness" when the card he's reading from says "Vaccine effectiveness". This is an old trick charlatans use to brainwash people. Notice how quickly he says it, classic brainwashing technique there. At 18:20 He claim, correctly, that natural immunity lasts longer. But he fails to mention the excessive cost. 1 in 50 people dies. about 1 in 8 require hospitalisation. At 20:49 He references the UK weekly surveillance report, but fails to mention the report claims the vaccine has prevented 261,500 hospitalisation. Not even attempting to paint a balanced picture here. At 23:33 He says he argues for "More data more data more data", this after using household transmission data, which is a much smaller dataset than community transmission data. He could have used community transmission data, but that wouldn't have give the results he was after. The really telling thing is in the video description: "Access to all of Chris’s content, live webinars twice a month, and much much more is available to our paying members". Need I say more?
1
@oldenshort1346 BTW, the Swedish study you have referred to on several occasions had nothing what so ever to do with the vaccine's effect on transmission rates. Nothing in that study suggests the vaccine does not reduce transmission. So I'm really not sure why you bothered to mention it.
1
@oldenshort1346 There's that projection we talked about. I've raised many issues with your claims, and all you can do is ignore them. Ok troll, what ever you say.
1
@oldenshort1346 And thanx for proving my point with your repeated ignorance and personal attacks.
1
@oldenshort1346 Household transmission cannot be used to measure community transmission. Every time you refuse to address that point, you merely reinforce it. And yes, I'm well aware you're nothing but a pathetic troll. But you only resorted to that when you realised you'd lost the debate. Well, I'm done with you, loser. You're obviously so desperate to have the last word, even though you clearly have nothing of value to say, so I'll leave you to it.
1
@arroeducarlion4990 That's real name Arroe?
1
@Free Thinker And that would be meaningful only if you could actually convince anyone you can count to 3.
1
@VeteranfromOz "YT needs an emoji for being a little bish" A black on white photo of an old bearded monkey-man should do fine.
1
@gansosmansos Why is it that when anyone gives you science deniers a fact which doesn't suit your agenda you ask them if they got it from CNN?
1
@marilynshepherd6480 People in Israel are pretty tough, not many of them would be scared of a little needle like the anti vaxxer snowflakes here.
1
There's not enough data to draw that conclusion. It my be correct, it may not. The bulk of the data is coming from South Africa, and while they're not reporting many deaths from this strain, their excess death rate just doubled, and they have a history of not bothering to count CV19 deaths accurately. These facts draw you conclusion into serious question.
1
@chrisministerofsmartarsery3322 Not with someone who can't admit they're wrong. There's nothing more unreasonable than that. If you can't admit your were wrong, you have no business asking me to be reasonable.
1