• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
7,158
Points
1,110
You ask why I had presented my data in a simplified way, as in using rates at the population level rather than by age cohorts, but then acknowledge that I was responding to McG's use of similarly oversimplified data... Apples to apples. I also took aim at his reference to Ontario's "Science Advisory Table", which I suggested had been misrepresenting data is it did not align well with the data coming out of Public Health Ontario. The Science Advisory Table was also disbanded over a month ago, and the website no longer updated, so even if it was once a trustworthy source of data, this is no longer the case. My post even stated afterward that "age trends in vaccination likely played a major role"... which I assumed people would understand but apparently not, thus my longer explanation of risk and vaccination uptake by age cohort in the specific province of which we were discussing (Ontario).

Was my initial statement overly simplistic? Yes. It was not to mislead people though, but rather intended to lead them to question why, if true, this was the case. In response, you outright accused my statements of being false, and made some rather unpleasant remarks on my behalf, however, even though they were not. You also included a diagram taken from Twitter that uses entirely hypothetical hospitalizations rates to try and explain "base rate fallacy"... it even stated that "hospitalization rate is 5x higher in unvaccinated population (50% vs 10%)". Do you think that your use of this graphic was misleading? It presented ratios, for illustration, that are nowhere near representative of actual hospitalization rates for either group. It also did not break risk down by age cohort.

I doubt you have taken objection to posts where people spoke ill of the "unvaccinated" population as a monolithic group without acknowledging the differences in risk between age cohorts. If it is so important to recognize relative risk by age group, do you think that measures such as vaccine mandates and passports should have taken age and other individual risk factors into account (like in Greece)?
I was rude, and I’ll apologize for that without qualification. My tone was inappropriate, sorry.

I apparently was reading what you were saying very differently from how you intended to present it. I still have some disagreements and was going to say more but I’ve just had something else come up and the conversation will likely have moved on. Regardless of whether I get caught on the rest, please accept my apology for how I approached this.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
101
Points
600
Be interesting to see how it played out in court.
Perhaps I overlooked this quip. Let's see, when I look up "slander", I get the two following definitions:

"a false spoken statement intended to damage the good opinion people have of somebody; the legal offence of making this kind of statement"

Given that the statement was made online and thus semi-permanent, perhaps it is more accurate to label it as "libelous". Although it is not that part of the definition that brihard has issue with, but rather insists that his statements were "very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood".

Well, my initial statements have been somewhat acknowledged as being true. His initial reaction to it was:
Uhh… What are you smoking? Unvaccinated people were a grossly disproportionate source of deaths and serious illness. I suspect you’re getting all fucked up from seeing slightly more vaccinated than unvaccinated people hospitalized, but with over 85% of the population vaccinated. Classic base rate fallacy.
Whether this counts as defamation is debatable.

I see that he has now apologized for this comment, which I wholeheartedly accept.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,478
Points
1,360
Wouldn't know. The extent of my legal education was watching Matlock. :)
I always preferred "Murder She Wrote" myself 😁

Perhaps I overlooked this quip. Let's see, when I look up "slander", I get the two following definitions:

"a false spoken statement intended to damage the good opinion people have of somebody; the legal offence of making this kind of statement"

Given that the statement was made online and thus semi-permanent, perhaps it is more accurate to label it as "libelous". Although it is not that part of the definition that brihard has issue with, but rather insists that his statements were "very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood".

Well, my initial statements have been somewhat acknowledged as being true. His initial reaction to it was:

Whether this counts as defamation is debatable.

I see that he has now apologized for this comment, which I wholeheartedly accept.
Jesus dude, lets go easy on throwing around words like libel and slander. It detracts from your argument.
 

kev994

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
925
Points
1,260
And then he called for an inquiry on his use of the EA.

The last one should be the most telling piece; instead of waiting for the uproar from his opponents to reach an untenable fever-pitch and caving to their demands for accountability, he initiated it himself instead of trying (fruitless as it may have been) to avoid accountability.
The inquiry is a mandatory, baked-in part of the act. Invoking the EA made the inquiry necessary, whether the PM called it or not.
 
Top