@bobknight33
You can do the inverse math to calculate the risk of the vaccine as well

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
(vaccine adverse event reporting system)

You can find more current numbers on the CDC site, but they're difficult to access and link directly to. This is simpler, but feel free to post more updated figures https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

------------------

"Event Category" "Event Category Code" Events Reported
"Death" "DTH" 5378 total reported as of right now.

out of how many vaccinations?
(i took the larger number because they still did get a poke in the arm at least once)

186,474,836

soooo

5378 ÷ 186,474,836 = 0.000028840352486

0.000028840352486
move the decimal

------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
0.0028840352486% of death from the vaccine
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------

Now, Bob, please, consider this.
Is a 2% chance of death MORE? or LESS? than a 0.0028840352486% chance of death?


Lets apply the numbers to the USA population

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

332,545,571 x 0.02 =
6,650,911.42
soooo 6.65 million WOW how close to the real number of deaths in the USA this is eh? WEIRRRRRRRRRRD right? durrrrrrrrrr


332,545,571 x 0.000028840352486 = 9590.7
soooo yeah, this is pretty close to the reporting incident report also
WEIRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD eh?


------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
You know them liberals, they are so powerful they can manipulate basic multiplication and division.

Your video, Census Update: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I looked up some stats just to see.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

30 per million blacks fatally shot by police.
12 per million whites fatally shot by police.

So cops are roughly twice as likely to kill a black person, per racial group.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219gg

US being 76% white and 13% black, that works out to an aggregate ratio of roughly 9 whites killed per 4 blacks, per capita. In the end the death toll is high all around, white people aren't getting away scott free.

We should also consider poverty. Poverty and crime tend to track one another. It's safe to assume that areas with more crime will be more likely to experience police encounters, and hence more police shootings on average.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%
22%7D

White poverty rate (9%) is roughly half of black poverty (22%), which implies that crime is also half as frequent among whites, which is roughly similar to the per capita difference in police shooting rate.

30/12 is 2.5
22/9 is 2.44
2.5 > 2.44, so it implies bias against blacks, but not as big as I expected.

As far as total people killed, cops kill plenty people of all races. The numbers don't look as lopsided as I expected, which surprises me.

I appreciate the solidarity among black people. They at least try to hold authorities to account.

White people couldn't care less when cops kill whites. They just shrug it off as 'well the guy must have done something to piss off the cop, so it was probably their own fault anyways'. You can sit on liveleak watching cops kill white people all day, but other white people never get worked up about it. It's a shame they don't have the same sense of unity as black people do.

I wish the protests were about police abuse in general. Or even goverment abuse. There are so many issues that need fixing (e.g. civil forfeiture, repeatedly trying people for the same event by tweaking charges until a conviction sticks, government budget being infinitely larger than a defendant's budget, government freezing a defendant's funds so they can't afford lawyers, etc).

-scheherazade

Your video, The Census: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Wow, Bob. Your head is deep in that hole to think that. I hope you wiped first.

We have two secret illegal payoffs for porn/playboy stars he cheated on his wife with (campaign finance abuses, and admissions that he slept with them and they might have proof, and indicators of his fidelity), "grab them by the pussy"...(and 14 people who say he did)....bragging about cheating on his wife with his friend's wives, multiple personal guilty pleas to frauds, tax evasion/fraud, charity fraud, 100 contacts with the hostile foreign power that helped defeat Clinton during the campaign (and a clear statement that he would love to collude with them again), 10+ cases of obstruction, uncountable illegal policies shot down in court (today he lost another, the census question designed to hurt Democrats and help Republicans, and now he wants to delay the census), a pattern of racism, a pattern of misogyny, a pattern of infantile whining, bullying, threatening, constant never-ending lies, denying science, ignoring legal precedents, destroying our international standing and reputation, multiple trade wars, .....and golf, never ending golf, far more than twice as often as Obama (who he called irresponsible for wasting time playing golf) at a cost to us of well over $100000000 so far (much of that paid to Trump's properties) and he still sucks so badly and cheats so blatantly that he has to hide from cameras every time....I just don't have all day to explain how much there is wrong with him beyond "grab them by the pussy"

Edit: Let's not forget the exponential rise in illegal immigration under his watch too....and his insistence he's building hundreds of miles of new wall that, in reality, is just mending existing fences he claims don't work.
Also, the increased division in America can't be ignored.

People are already swayed against him. Never reached 50% approval, losing to the top 10 Democrats in all polls, even his own. He won't get the angry Bernie Bro votes, or the undecided anti politician, or the old school republican vote, or a lot of farmer votes, or factory worker votes this round.

The country can't afford to have him win, Democrats gained power under him. Duh. Expect to lose the senate, and lose ground in the house, not to mention local governments.

Everyone not in your cult believes it's likely worse than is reported, because he's bullied news organizations so much they're terrified to make a mistake or even report the whole truth or he will label them enemies of America and your ilk will threaten their lives, and their children's lives, and actually try to kill them. Dozens if not hundreds of cases since his election....none before...or he might even directly threaten to have them arrested like he did last week.

Wages aren't rising (except for at the top), and absolutely weren't stagnant under Obama. In states where minimum wage has risen, it's despite Trump denouncing a raise in minimum wages. Massive inflation caused directly by his policies....trade wars, ruined trade agreements, etc., mean purchase power is falling, not growing. No infrastructure repairs, no repeal and replace, only attempts to ruin and leave Obama care, tax cuts for himself (despite his denials before they passed) and tax raises on the middle class (despite the fact he lied and called them temporary tax cuts before they passed), the biggest growth in the debt and deficit ever......that enough for now?

Totally fucking up the China and Iran issues, both are exponentially worse thanks to him. Jebus! It's ignorant insanity to imply they were ignored, you just didn't like Obama's agreements, agreements that were working to our benefit until Trump abandoned them, now we have trade wars with one, driving them into an alliance with Russia, and nearing actual war with the other.

Really...name the charges Obama had to defend in court. Derp. I can name DOZENS that Trump has, and is defending in court, and hundreds more he'll have to defend as soon as his shield of being president is gone.

Another post 100% wrong, Bob. I'm impressed, but not in a good way.

Trump's presidency? It certainly is a sham.

No surprise you can't understand plain English. Being in a cult of personality has destroyed your less than stellar brain.
You describe Trump lying under oath as him being smart to not implicate himself but don't realize that means you admit the truth is he's a criminal.

Mueller said exactly what he means, DOJ rules did not allow him to even consider criminal charges, but congress can...here's 400 pages of evidence about multiple high crimes that does not in any way exonerate the president. Congress has a duty to examine and act on that evidence. You hear that as "total exoneration, case closed".

What about the other three scandals that were exposed today? How will you excuse today's undeniable criminality, unpatriotic incivility, and his admission that his presidency is illegitimate?

One, perjury by dozens of official Trumpees about the racist census changes that prove they were designed to give "Republicans and non Hispanic whites an electoral advantage" and hurt the Democrats, and would have that effect according to studies they also hid and lied under oath about. Proof of the racist conspiracy going back to 2015 was uncovered, contradicting their testimony that the order came directly from the DOJ based on questions first raised in 2017. Gonna just wait until 10am to hear the party line in court, then whatever new lie they tell will be your answer I expect.

Two, the constantly shifting denial of the official Whitehouse orders to hide the John McCain and barring of sailors from the ship from events because the Biggest Loser throws a childish temper tantrum when he hears or reads the name. Gonna blame that on a subordinate and deny responsibility for those under him acting incredibly, offensively unpatriotic and disrespecting the military on his behalf in his name purely to stroke his ego...."with good intentions" (keeping Trump's ego unbruised), and just ignore the reason they had to do it too I expect.

Three, the accidental admission that Russia actually got him elected. That you'll call an intentional misunderstanding of a poorly worded tweet by the fake news lefty media not a Freudian slip or confession I expect.

Thanks for the opportunity to shine more light on more daily proof he's illegitimate, unfit for office, and surrounded by unscrupulous and lawless sycophants.

This infantile lie over a narcissistic vendetta against a dead American War Hero by a draft dodging business failure and liar and his sycophants comes the day after they were caught lying under oath about adding citizenship questions to the census. Fortunately, the estranged daughter of Thomas Hofeller, who's involvement the administration had hidden and denied under oath, found and turned over hidden hard drives in his effects outlining his significant involvement to the ACLU, actually proving he orchestrated the addition and personally drafted the letter from the DOJ to the Commerce Department that instigated the addition to create a "structural electoral advantage for Republicans and non-Hispanic whites" and a "disadvantage to Democrats". His records also outlined a study he did in 2015 that showed exactly that same outcome from the addition of the question, despite the administration claiming under oath that the idea was first suggested by administration officials in 2017 without outside involvement or studies.
The administration has been given until 10am Friday to address this evidence of perjury by multiple officials.

Edit: and this morning he tweeted he had no part in Russia helping him get elected....which he later realized was an admission that he's an illegitimate president elected because of help from our enemy. The dumb just never stops from the Biggest Loser in Cheat.

It’s very important to note that drawing direct parallels between countries when it comes to crime is very murky, as these difference could be due to differences in laws, the way the criminal justice system is set up, how policing is done, how crimes are reported, and much more.

Quoting this: Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago's Crime Lab, called Zimring and Hawkins's book "an excellent source." In a 2015 phone interview, he pointed to a number of more recent studies that fit the pattern it identified.

"There's no question the United States faces a number of distinctive social policy challenges, some of which affect the crime rate. But many other OECD countries face their own distinctive problems that affect their crime rate," he told me. Western Europe, for example, has a major problem with drug use. Canadian cities have "very high" rates of property crime like car theft. And yet, the US still stands out on murders.

"I think that Americans have this view of Western Europe, or Toronto for that matter, which is very stereotypical and doesn't take into account the challenges that many of peer industrial democracy problems face," he points out. "There's a lot of drug sale, a lot of ethnic stratification and conflict, there's a lot of just general crime."

Crime rates in Canada aren't that much lower than the USA, there are just fewer violent crimes, like homicides.

In addition to this, a major factor might be considered in regards to Canada. Population and population density. Canada is lower than the USA across the board, 36.71 million to 325.7 million and density of 3.9 people per km to almost 90 people per mile (last census data).

I don't support the NRA, btw. I think they are idiots. I do support logical gun laws. I don't care for fake news.

I also think I was civil in my response to your original comment. I have tried to remain that way even though one could classify your response to mine as hostile and provocatory.

Would it have any impact on my argument either way?
If you checked my DNA, there certainly would be African in it. Maybe enough to call me "black" in the south, it doesn't take much. That said, no, I don't check "black" on the census form.

I just believe it works best to exemplify the behavior you want from others, to lead by example rather than reaction, and treat others as you would have them treat you, not as they have treated you.

EDIT: I also think there's a huge difference between 'you shouldn't use that word, ever.' and 'you cannot use that word, ever, or I'll violently attack you.' I agree, white people shouldn't use that word or any derivation of it, and should expect blowback if they do, but if we want to live in a post racial society where people aren't discriminated against based on race, that means no one should use it.

"They murder over tiny details".

Question, who is 'they'? The 'Christians' who ran the crusades? The protestant 'Christians' bombing the English Catholic 'Christians'? The Catholic 'Christians' cleansing the protestant heretics? The current pope of the Catholic church? The folks in your neighbourhood that attend a church sometimes? The people that check off 'christian' on the census?

Your entire exposition gives the distinct impression that you include everyone in the whole group as 'they' and liken them not only the the very worst in the group, you even insist that the worst aren't quite bad enough(Westboro), are as bad as what YOU define their beliefs to be.

Is some lengthy theological dissertation refuting your interpretation of the bible required evidence before you'll accept that calling all christian's murders is unfair? I'm sorry I won't present you that kind of evidence in thread, but I'm quite confident you are as capable as me to quickly google for the likely hundreds of hefty books already dedicated to exactly that...

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

Cool video, but from what i've read seems the general census is there is no way it's real(as in, not what it portrays itself as).

First of all, statistics aren't a game Not all of the internet is about being a tough guy winner, and sometimes some of us are just trying to explain ourselves.

Secondly, I'm not giving you links because I like links, but because I like sources. Not all sources are equal. A blog post by a conservative think tank employee and right wing activist isn't as neutral as the CDC or the US Census. Nothing is 100% 'neutral', but numbers gathered by the Labor Department are a little more transparent than a blog post by Christina Hoff Sommers. Say what you will about her, but her agenda is always very clear.

Thirdly, can you clarify your point about illegal discrimination? I don't think anybody talked about illegal discrimination, just the actual wage gap. Illegal discrimination is not necessary to establish oppression - nobody is illegally preventing women from becoming president, but we still have a historic gender gap in the oval office. Things can be shitty and in need of change even if it nothing currently illegal is going on (like the pew research polling you linked to shows). Illiteracy, for example, is a shitty phenomenon for citizens and bad for democracy, but it's not illegal; the wage gap is bad for citizens and for democracy, even when it is not illegal.

Fourthly, if you are willing to accept that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of women by men outside of prison, I will also concede that there's a pervasive and destructive culture of rape of men by men in prison. In fact, I'll go ahead and concede that anyway. Which is fucking awful, but doesn't mean that feminists are wrong for railing against the situation outside of prison. The are two different sectors of society, and the factors that create a rape culture in one sector do not apply so much in the other. Still awful though.

fifthly, you ended on some stuff which might just have been random thoughts, because I don't see how they fit in anywhere:

"[the existence of self-perpetuating unjust power structures] does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride" - was not said by me, ever. We should get rid of injustice even if not all men get a free ride, I think

"in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey" - can be said about all sorts of uppity oppressed groups

"this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists!" - doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her wrong, and it doesn't 'ruin' all of feminism.

"at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another. feel free to disagree." ...nobody can disagree with this because it means nothing. It's a Hallmark card. I tried to give you actual facts and you countered with "we are all humans so everything is like, always a human issue and like, opinions, man."

The % is from his words 700,000 transgender. USA has approx 320 million.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/
your 147million comes out to near .02% still insignificant.

The only time .02% matters is when you are one of the .02%. So no- you don't matter in the real scheme of things. There are bigger problems in the world than seeking a seat at the table of equal rights.

Really? I understand racial insensitivity, but is this a fair expectation of diversity in a fictional place that takes place in Scotland? Sure, the name is completely off, but it feels like the rest of this anger is misplaced on an author who is not trying to tell a story on themes of racial diversity.
To top it off, crowds react strongly and positively to enthusiastic and impassioned anger, further building the bravado of this poetic "slam" piece.
If Rowling is trying to tell and cast a story reflective of the local demographics, it doesn't appear inaccurate.
Scotland isn't the same type of "melting pot" America has come to be. Again, perhaps the expectation has been created that all cultures must have the demographic diversity that America has established. Remember, the character she is referring to is actually Scottish.

Scottish population by ethnic group (Scotland 2011 Census)

Percentage of total
White Scottish - 84.0%
White Other British - 7.9%
White Irish - 1.0%
White Gypsy/Traveller - 0.1%
White Polish - 1.2%
Other White ethnic group - 1.9%
White Total - 96.0%

Pakistani - 0.9%
Indian - 0.6%
Bangladeshi - 0.1%
Chinese - 0.6%
Other - 0.4%
Asian Total - 2.7%

Caribbean - 0.1%
Black - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black Other - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black - 0.1%
African - 0.6%
African Other - 0.0%
African Total - 0.6%

Mixed or multiple ethnic groups - 0.4%
Arab - 0.2%
Other - 0.1%
Other ethnic group Total - 0.3%