Was there a disclaimer when you were on the page? I see this at the top now, could this have something to do with it?
"The vaccine outcome tab is currently incorrect due to technical issues. Otherwise COVID-19 data included in the interactive data application is up-to-date as of Jan 24, 2022."
There was not! Looks like someone noticed after working hours. Slightly promising, though, strange the data issues only ever go one way... I issued a warning on this article so people that find themselves here are not confused. Thank you :)
Phew that would be a relief then! Assuming they update it properly of course, tomorrow. I was about to lose complete faith in humanity which isn't a far stretch these days, but would definitely be rock bottom.
So is them shifting bad outcomes down the list (like three shot cases within two weeks to two shot stats, and so on down the line)?
They have shifted the goal posts so many times now you can’t even compare historical data vs. current. I can’t understand how anyone believes any of the data at this point.
Did you see the video by Norman Fenton about how time shifting mortality data you can generate ‘efficacy’ even in a hypothetical placebo? The two week time shifts effectively do this.
Yesterday's data already includes a two week shift and even if they shifted it two more weeks the data would not look like this. Cases in the double dosed wouldn't go down substantially because most cases occurred several months post vaccine as one example. Even if they rolled back vaccine cases to what they were several months ago, unvaccinated deaths would not go up unless they are calculating unvaccinated deaths as total deaths-vaccinated deaths, which would seem strange (but feasible) to me. The fact that the denominators went up accurately if all the other data rolled back would also be strange. It's hard to tell what is going on here, but there may actually be clues as to what they did. I just haven't found them yet.
Could they be setting an ‘expiry date’ on shots. Like we know they already skip the first two weeks after a shot and drop those cases into the group below…
Could they be counting cases > 3 months after the second shot as unvaccinated, since by their own recommendations you should be boosted then. Perhaps similar if you get a first shot then decide not to get a second.
So if you get off the vaccine merry-go-round your inevitable case is considered unvaccinated?
Interesting concept. If we look 1 month from the first dose and 6 months for the second dose we can get eerily similar numbers to the ones they have... but it does not explain the booster numbers being lower. Deaths don't match up either.
Cases occurring >6 months after dose 2 and <2 weeks after dose 3 is unvaccinated?
I’m more familiar with Ontario’s data and they completely changed the collection metrics on Dec 31st. They started implementing a split between hospitalization ‘with COVID’ and ‘due to COVID’. On the surface this seems sensible, but is obviously ripe for malfeasance. They also have a vaccination status unknown which includes the vaccinated if their database is missing the type of vaccine they received. Hopefully this is some kind of mistake rather than Alberta heading down a similar road.
Based on your previous posts (which I’ve enjoyed!), you obviously know the Alberta data very well. Looking forward to what you come up with.
Looks like they issued a warning that the data is incorrect. Props to them for doing it after hours (though, this could have been caught with a crosscheck when they originally posted it....). I did not know the vaccination status unknown feature was used for that... I assumed it was for out of province cases, but it has been growing fast recently. So vaccination status unknown means vaccinated?
Vaccine unknown: Includes people vaccinated with an unspecified vaccine product. This can occur when the name of the vaccine received is missing in the provincial or territorial vaccine registry.
Approximately a third of ICU cases are vaccine unknown, and they simply remove them from the pie chart.
Check out
golden_pup
On twitter, he publishes charts daily that show the pie chart with vaccination unknown for ICU and hospitalization. It’s evident that those cases could tip the balance either way if they were included.
——-
Better late than never on announcing the data error!
It's curious how they group 12-19 year olds (whose parents are concerned about vaccines) into an 18 year grouping up to 29 years old (12 - 29) in Vaccine outcomes. Looking at their data elsewhere, including CDC data, vaccine outcomes among unvaccinated 12-15 approximately would be very close to the 5-11 year olds. However, they put the teens in with the up to 29 year olds so that the hospitalization case rates will look bigger. Much bigger.
They also do not consider overweight/obese patients as having comorbidities. If they did that, the case rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated alike in all age ranges would plummet. Especially in the younger age ranges. They do not want people to know just how determinative of outcomes obesity really is.
Finally it is not clear whether they are measuring hospitalizations post January 10th in in these metrics in the same way (due to the incidental or unrelated hospitalizations they are reporting now). What this does is allows them to tinker reduce the numbers of all hospitalizations and ICU visits so that they don't have to reflect the current grotesque ineffectiveness of the vaccine in all of prevention, hospitalization, and ICU visits.
But two things are consistently happening. Numbers and data are consistently presented and organized in a misleading manner that always results in two things:
1. Vaccine effectiveness and outcomes are presented as being much higher/better than they really are; and
2. The data cannot be used by a person in any range to get a meaningful and truthful assessment of how at risk they really are if unvaccinated - based on age, comorbidities, and obesity (or lack thereof).
Without a very critical eye, the data can be very misleading indeed.
Funny he rules out biological processes right off the bat. Health seeking behavior is a poor excuse because the vaccinated are also much more likely to test at home and not be accounted for in the numbers. Deaths are only around 75% vaxxed in Alberta so maybe it is that. But then their narrative about the vaccine preventing deaths also falls out the window. They can say it prevents cases or deaths. The numbers don't justify both.
I should note... Under their premise that the vaccine has some efficacy against delta, and omicron is milder, and the unvaccinated are less likely to get omicron and more likely to get delta, then that divergence in deaths probably doesn't exist for omicron cases.
I will believe if you show me one that has risen. It happened here in town too though. Last year the death count went one number down, so one had risen.... and a few days later I guess, died again.... strange things happen with this virus. And kills and rises people.
Was there a disclaimer when you were on the page? I see this at the top now, could this have something to do with it?
"The vaccine outcome tab is currently incorrect due to technical issues. Otherwise COVID-19 data included in the interactive data application is up-to-date as of Jan 24, 2022."
There was not! Looks like someone noticed after working hours. Slightly promising, though, strange the data issues only ever go one way... I issued a warning on this article so people that find themselves here are not confused. Thank you :)
Thank you for all you are doing by the way! We need more people to hold the government to account.
It's not there now.
Phew that would be a relief then! Assuming they update it properly of course, tomorrow. I was about to lose complete faith in humanity which isn't a far stretch these days, but would definitely be rock bottom.
"The only way these changes could have occurred is if the vaccine now raises people from the dead."
So this is how our zombie apocalypse starts.....
So is them shifting bad outcomes down the list (like three shot cases within two weeks to two shot stats, and so on down the line)?
They have shifted the goal posts so many times now you can’t even compare historical data vs. current. I can’t understand how anyone believes any of the data at this point.
Did you see the video by Norman Fenton about how time shifting mortality data you can generate ‘efficacy’ even in a hypothetical placebo? The two week time shifts effectively do this.
Yesterday's data already includes a two week shift and even if they shifted it two more weeks the data would not look like this. Cases in the double dosed wouldn't go down substantially because most cases occurred several months post vaccine as one example. Even if they rolled back vaccine cases to what they were several months ago, unvaccinated deaths would not go up unless they are calculating unvaccinated deaths as total deaths-vaccinated deaths, which would seem strange (but feasible) to me. The fact that the denominators went up accurately if all the other data rolled back would also be strange. It's hard to tell what is going on here, but there may actually be clues as to what they did. I just haven't found them yet.
Could they be setting an ‘expiry date’ on shots. Like we know they already skip the first two weeks after a shot and drop those cases into the group below…
Could they be counting cases > 3 months after the second shot as unvaccinated, since by their own recommendations you should be boosted then. Perhaps similar if you get a first shot then decide not to get a second.
So if you get off the vaccine merry-go-round your inevitable case is considered unvaccinated?
Interesting concept. If we look 1 month from the first dose and 6 months for the second dose we can get eerily similar numbers to the ones they have... but it does not explain the booster numbers being lower. Deaths don't match up either.
Cases occurring >6 months after dose 2 and <2 weeks after dose 3 is unvaccinated?
I’m more familiar with Ontario’s data and they completely changed the collection metrics on Dec 31st. They started implementing a split between hospitalization ‘with COVID’ and ‘due to COVID’. On the surface this seems sensible, but is obviously ripe for malfeasance. They also have a vaccination status unknown which includes the vaccinated if their database is missing the type of vaccine they received. Hopefully this is some kind of mistake rather than Alberta heading down a similar road.
Based on your previous posts (which I’ve enjoyed!), you obviously know the Alberta data very well. Looking forward to what you come up with.
Looks like they issued a warning that the data is incorrect. Props to them for doing it after hours (though, this could have been caught with a crosscheck when they originally posted it....). I did not know the vaccination status unknown feature was used for that... I assumed it was for out of province cases, but it has been growing fast recently. So vaccination status unknown means vaccinated?
This is the official definition:
Vaccine unknown: Includes people vaccinated with an unspecified vaccine product. This can occur when the name of the vaccine received is missing in the provincial or territorial vaccine registry.
Approximately a third of ICU cases are vaccine unknown, and they simply remove them from the pie chart.
Check out
golden_pup
On twitter, he publishes charts daily that show the pie chart with vaccination unknown for ICU and hospitalization. It’s evident that those cases could tip the balance either way if they were included.
——-
Better late than never on announcing the data error!
https://youtu.be/6umArFc-fdc
Approx 21 minutes in
A seismic shift overnight?! How do they get away with this?!
For a while, Alberta data was pretty good - at least, in the Canadian context (which, admittedly, is damning with faint praise).
Now, Alberta appears to be playing with its data to get the “correct” result.
So, it seems almost no covid data from Canada can be trusted. Super.
I feel sick to my stomach.
It's curious how they group 12-19 year olds (whose parents are concerned about vaccines) into an 18 year grouping up to 29 years old (12 - 29) in Vaccine outcomes. Looking at their data elsewhere, including CDC data, vaccine outcomes among unvaccinated 12-15 approximately would be very close to the 5-11 year olds. However, they put the teens in with the up to 29 year olds so that the hospitalization case rates will look bigger. Much bigger.
They also do not consider overweight/obese patients as having comorbidities. If they did that, the case rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated alike in all age ranges would plummet. Especially in the younger age ranges. They do not want people to know just how determinative of outcomes obesity really is.
Finally it is not clear whether they are measuring hospitalizations post January 10th in in these metrics in the same way (due to the incidental or unrelated hospitalizations they are reporting now). What this does is allows them to tinker reduce the numbers of all hospitalizations and ICU visits so that they don't have to reflect the current grotesque ineffectiveness of the vaccine in all of prevention, hospitalization, and ICU visits.
But two things are consistently happening. Numbers and data are consistently presented and organized in a misleading manner that always results in two things:
1. Vaccine effectiveness and outcomes are presented as being much higher/better than they really are; and
2. The data cannot be used by a person in any range to get a meaningful and truthful assessment of how at risk they really are if unvaccinated - based on age, comorbidities, and obesity (or lack thereof).
Without a very critical eye, the data can be very misleading indeed.
See how MSM is trying to explain it away.... just to be aware how the other side thinks even though I do not buy into their explanation
https://twnews.nl/ca-news/why-the-double-vaccinated-in-some-places-are-testing-positive-for-covid-more-often-than-the-unvaccinated
Funny he rules out biological processes right off the bat. Health seeking behavior is a poor excuse because the vaccinated are also much more likely to test at home and not be accounted for in the numbers. Deaths are only around 75% vaxxed in Alberta so maybe it is that. But then their narrative about the vaccine preventing deaths also falls out the window. They can say it prevents cases or deaths. The numbers don't justify both.
I should note... Under their premise that the vaccine has some efficacy against delta, and omicron is milder, and the unvaccinated are less likely to get omicron and more likely to get delta, then that divergence in deaths probably doesn't exist for omicron cases.
Always the technical issues issue!
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/
Thank you for the analysis. What kind of rotten world are we living in? What a sick sickcare system!
I will believe if you show me one that has risen. It happened here in town too though. Last year the death count went one number down, so one had risen.... and a few days later I guess, died again.... strange things happen with this virus. And kills and rises people.