A question for people who are indiscriminate Covid vaccination proponents- Why do we need to rig the vaccine effectiveness data if the vaccines are working?
Couldn’t the converse also be true? Namely that, the higher the case counts, the more new people went and took the vaccines? That seems pretty reasonable or at least it’s likely to explain some portion of the affect.
Yes, excellent point. We can definitely test for that (I will do that tomorrow); though, I would say most of the rise in first doses is driven by the FDA approving vaccines at the end of October. There are certainly some confounding variables here which need to be sorted out. The thing is, though, negative effectiveness in the first 14 days+ of the first dose has been adequately proven in basically every country around the world, so even if the cases went up and then they got vaccinated, that in itself would drive the wave even further. The best time to get vaccinated would be when there is no COVID present and to completely stop vaccinating as soon as there is transmission in the community (the vaccine version of locking down to flatten the curve).
Right, the confounder could be incidence rate and "reverse causality".
The problem is, they need to first acknowledge this effect for them to prove the causal pathway is one from the other.
They won't acknowledge it and cry crocodile tears about lack of pumping viral proteins in those parts where there is no Covid. As if not having enough Covid there for an organic demand for vaccines is the problem.
I've grown rather suspicious of these "per 100,000" case counts. They just don't correspond with what I'm seeing on the ground-- which led me to asking why all of the U.S. states I've looked at seem to only report case rates among vaxxed and unvaxxed (refusing to share both the numerators and the denominators they use to get these rates). It's reasonable to compare rates per 100,000-- but there is no transparency about how they reach their conclusions about how many people are vaccinated and not vaccinated.
Anecdotally, too, MANY people (including the vaccinated) have told me they know they caught covid from a fully vaccinated (often boosted) person. My own family caught covid from a fully vaccinated family who didn't (want to) think their cold symptoms were covid. Vaccinated people are the real superspreaders, and that is just what your graph shows.
Rates per 100k is purposefully manipulative. It is just as easy to translate things into person days lived, and way more accurate (still subject to confounders like age and comorbidities but I don't trust how they'd adjust for those either). My favorite is Alberta data that has rates per 100k in the last 120 days... With today's denominators. They do something similar with the x% of the vaccinated population has gotten COVID to date. Considering people get vaccinated on different days, it tells us nothing about risk but they use it to help people unconciously calculate risk. It's not an accident either. These are "nudges".
They are hoping that the elderly don't figure this out and freak out. So they can quietly "off" them. Look at LTC outbreaks happening now. They can't blame unvaccinated anymore and we will see the results. Fingers crossed.
A question for people who are indiscriminate Covid vaccination proponents- Why do we need to rig the vaccine effectiveness data if the vaccines are working?
Couldn’t the converse also be true? Namely that, the higher the case counts, the more new people went and took the vaccines? That seems pretty reasonable or at least it’s likely to explain some portion of the affect.
Yes, excellent point. We can definitely test for that (I will do that tomorrow); though, I would say most of the rise in first doses is driven by the FDA approving vaccines at the end of October. There are certainly some confounding variables here which need to be sorted out. The thing is, though, negative effectiveness in the first 14 days+ of the first dose has been adequately proven in basically every country around the world, so even if the cases went up and then they got vaccinated, that in itself would drive the wave even further. The best time to get vaccinated would be when there is no COVID present and to completely stop vaccinating as soon as there is transmission in the community (the vaccine version of locking down to flatten the curve).
Right, the confounder could be incidence rate and "reverse causality".
The problem is, they need to first acknowledge this effect for them to prove the causal pathway is one from the other.
They won't acknowledge it and cry crocodile tears about lack of pumping viral proteins in those parts where there is no Covid. As if not having enough Covid there for an organic demand for vaccines is the problem.
So glad I found your Substack!
I've grown rather suspicious of these "per 100,000" case counts. They just don't correspond with what I'm seeing on the ground-- which led me to asking why all of the U.S. states I've looked at seem to only report case rates among vaxxed and unvaxxed (refusing to share both the numerators and the denominators they use to get these rates). It's reasonable to compare rates per 100,000-- but there is no transparency about how they reach their conclusions about how many people are vaccinated and not vaccinated.
Anecdotally, too, MANY people (including the vaccinated) have told me they know they caught covid from a fully vaccinated (often boosted) person. My own family caught covid from a fully vaccinated family who didn't (want to) think their cold symptoms were covid. Vaccinated people are the real superspreaders, and that is just what your graph shows.
Rates per 100k is purposefully manipulative. It is just as easy to translate things into person days lived, and way more accurate (still subject to confounders like age and comorbidities but I don't trust how they'd adjust for those either). My favorite is Alberta data that has rates per 100k in the last 120 days... With today's denominators. They do something similar with the x% of the vaccinated population has gotten COVID to date. Considering people get vaccinated on different days, it tells us nothing about risk but they use it to help people unconciously calculate risk. It's not an accident either. These are "nudges".
They are hoping that the elderly don't figure this out and freak out. So they can quietly "off" them. Look at LTC outbreaks happening now. They can't blame unvaccinated anymore and we will see the results. Fingers crossed.