Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Big Pharma Owns the Media" video.

It's not "unbridled" when the state funded the development of the bug, an agency subservient to the United Nations denied the problem and delayed the response, states shoved the sick into elderly homes, destroyed economies and jobs and now are mandating the product to be consumed by the populace.
2
Is this a joke? It's called a sample size.
1
@mrrselfdestruction1077 It's a huge sample. You're at a factory and you're in charge of manufacturing a product. How many do you pull out of a batch for destructive testing? It has to be a small sample or your profits go out the window. How many cars of a particular model do you think are rammed at the concrete barrier for safety testing?
1
@mrrselfdestruction1077 Nothing is ever the same. That's why quality control exists. Depending on the process and the type of product you're making, it might be completely unprofitable to verify each product, so you take samples. And you know there's a statistical significance in that sample. Why is it adequate for the UK? The UK has around 68 million people. So by your standards 451 thousand is enough. To which I say, that's hardly anyone compared to the US population. It's 1/7th of a percent. Do you have actual hard data to justify why 500 thousand is statistically significant? Because statistics get manipulated in the way you decide to gather the data, but the numbers part is hard science. Or are you just throwing numbers out there, just like you determined 96k is statistically significant for the UK without a single calculation explaining why? Yes, the US has different cultures. Have you actually read the poll and figured out if the organizers spread their polling data across regions to compensate for that? Or are you just spitballing?
1
@mrrselfdestruction1077 Yeah, but you need to "base it off" statistical theory. You're just spitballing numbers. We don't deal with spitballing. As with the aforementioned example, you don't spitball the number of samples you take from a batch. Too many, you're wasting money. Too few, you lose confidence in the statistical relevancy of your samples. I'm not asking you what "you think". I'm asking you what statistical theory says you should think instead. Me trying to explain it won't do any good, I want you to go through the process yourself. Knowledge is just one tab away. I'm just going to post the results. For a confidence level of 95% and a population of 320 million a sample size of 96k gives you a margin of error of 0.31%. That's nothing. If you increase it to 451k you get 0.14%. So you almost quintupled the amount of work you have to do, to halve the margin of error. Which was essentially nothing to begin with. I'd recommend learning about the subject because me telling you that you're wrong isn't going to work. I just want people to stop posting things like "96k isn't enough" even though it clearly is. It's a huge sample.
1
This assuming that the jabbed can make new antibodies instead of just being stuck producing 2019 Wuhan strain antibodies.
1