The incessant #BigMedia #BigPharma spin remains, very much, designed to undercut the naysayers horrified by the avalanche of side effects triggered by the jabs.
I would LOVE it if someone with more numeracy skills would dissect and deconstruct for us this week's fresh Scientific American effort (dated June 7) to try to persuade / coerce / terrorize the many still resolutely #unjabbed to rush out and ask for the damned #Pfizer or #Moderna needles!
The Scientific American subheadline:
"The death rate among unvaccinated people is still far higher than that among the vaccinated even though vaccinated people now make up a significant proportion of deaths"
What statistical trickery did they use? Perhaps the despicable "Doesn't count as vaxxed until 14 or 21 days after getting the latest jab or booster" ? We see so much deception as the official narrative starts to unravel.....
They keep moving the goalposts and torquing their definitions and classifications to prop up the official story.... thanks to SubstackNation for helping keep the steel in my spine!
I don't think it's possible to dissect it (mathematically). The problem is the underlying data source from the CDC is corrupted. It's sourcing from a bunch of different states with generally opaque data. The unvaccinated population is incorrect, there may be some regionality, differences in reporting, etc but the real problem is probably a combination of corruption (California and NY state health departments spring to mind) and potential economic incentives (do insurance companies get more for an unvaccinated than vaccinated death in some states? I bet they do). The numbers are just too disconnected from literally every other data set in the world to be accurate and there is not enough information explaining why. The case numbers don't even match up with US datasets like the Walgreens test outcomes data (or basically every study coming out of the US that isn't sponsored by the CDC)
According to the chart "Vaccination uptake, by vaccination date age demographics" in the link below, the current uptake rates in the UK are 95.8% (ages 75 to 79), 95.9% (80 to 84), 96% (85 to 89) and 94.4% (90+).
Yes. Based on population estimated for what year and how good are those estimates? I did a whole series dissecting errors in population estimates and the tricks health authorities use. Unfortunately, the errors produced by inaccurate population estimates get magnified the more vaccinated the population is, which is the case for most older populations. The UK data you mentioned uses 2020 population estimates, for example, meaning they are entirely incorrect with an aging population
Another great effort at making some sense of the insanity. Thanks for doing what you do.
The incessant #BigMedia #BigPharma spin remains, very much, designed to undercut the naysayers horrified by the avalanche of side effects triggered by the jabs.
I would LOVE it if someone with more numeracy skills would dissect and deconstruct for us this week's fresh Scientific American effort (dated June 7) to try to persuade / coerce / terrorize the many still resolutely #unjabbed to rush out and ask for the damned #Pfizer or #Moderna needles!
The Scientific American subheadline:
"The death rate among unvaccinated people is still far higher than that among the vaccinated even though vaccinated people now make up a significant proportion of deaths"
What statistical trickery did they use? Perhaps the despicable "Doesn't count as vaxxed until 14 or 21 days after getting the latest jab or booster" ? We see so much deception as the official narrative starts to unravel.....
They keep moving the goalposts and torquing their definitions and classifications to prop up the official story.... thanks to SubstackNation for helping keep the steel in my spine!
Here is the URL:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/
The graphics send a message completely opposite to what I have been led to understand by depending on #SubstackNation!
thank you!
I don't think it's possible to dissect it (mathematically). The problem is the underlying data source from the CDC is corrupted. It's sourcing from a bunch of different states with generally opaque data. The unvaccinated population is incorrect, there may be some regionality, differences in reporting, etc but the real problem is probably a combination of corruption (California and NY state health departments spring to mind) and potential economic incentives (do insurance companies get more for an unvaccinated than vaccinated death in some states? I bet they do). The numbers are just too disconnected from literally every other data set in the world to be accurate and there is not enough information explaining why. The case numbers don't even match up with US datasets like the Walgreens test outcomes data (or basically every study coming out of the US that isn't sponsored by the CDC)
Tikes! There are times my mind gets so dark and I wonder… was it actually designed to kill the overweight and the elderly?
A logarithmic vertical scale would also show details for younger age groups.
According to the chart "Vaccination uptake, by vaccination date age demographics" in the link below, the current uptake rates in the UK are 95.8% (ages 75 to 79), 95.9% (80 to 84), 96% (85 to 89) and 94.4% (90+).
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaType=nation&areaName=England&fbclid=IwAR24MWziICvSaplpL6R8N3vx85T0jZcuUIox4r-fw83fGIvB7FX5RjlH_uw
Yes. Based on population estimated for what year and how good are those estimates? I did a whole series dissecting errors in population estimates and the tricks health authorities use. Unfortunately, the errors produced by inaccurate population estimates get magnified the more vaccinated the population is, which is the case for most older populations. The UK data you mentioned uses 2020 population estimates, for example, meaning they are entirely incorrect with an aging population