1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: Today at 05:33:41 PM »I don't need to.Now, why do you think a provided correction somehow renders the article incorrect?Maybe next you could work out the difference between the article's 186 and the actual real data from the source of 1097. Looking forward to your results.Maybe next time, you could actually point out the link in the article where you found the new number.
Look forward to your follow-up.
You really need to work on your reading comrehension skills...However, when you click on the link in article to the data report they are citing, "Weekly status report of the RKI on coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19)" from the Koch Institute, 12/30/2021 – UPDATED STATUS FOR GERMANY, SHORT REPORT and translate the pdf from German, right up at the top, in red, it says:
"Correction: On p. 14, the number of unvaccinated among the reported omicron cases on January 3, 2022 was corrected (before: 186; afterwards: 1,097)."
But because I'm feeling charitable, here's a quick tutorial on some of the basics of website functionality, of which, apparently, you seem to be unaware of...
Let me know if you need any further assistance.
If you cared to read the article you would realize that the entire piece is predicated on the difference between:
Unvaxed = 0.0008%
Vaxed = 0.006%
When in reality, as you so deftly pointed out, it's actually:
Unvaxed = 0.005%
Vaxed = 0.007%
Now apply your math wizardry to the difference between 0.0008% & 0.005% as well as 0.0008% & 0.007%. Let us know what you come up with.
You need to show why an article that provides correct figures is incorrect.
Already did. (« Reply #154 on: February 03, 2023, 12:19:17 AM »)