One could cynically argue that this is one task the government didn't screw up.
In the "covid dashboards" I check weekly-- two different states-- we see the exact same thing. Failure to report raw numbers. Insistence on reporting "case rates" and supposed efficacy rate of the vaccines. Continued labeling of all who don't meet their standards of "fully vaccinated" as "unvaccinated." I'd love to see an example of a single state, county, city, or hospital in the U.S. that doesn't do at least one of these things.
Is there any way this way of reporting covid and vaccine data wasn't orchestrated and isn't being followed fairly successfully-- despite the obvious inconveniences and greater amount of number crunching required? It seems like nobody missed the memo here. (I would also note that the U.S., unlike some other countries, seems to be avoiding a "Recovered" section on the ubiquitous covid dashboard. Why not proudly display a statistic that other nations have used patriotically? Again, I am asking as a cynical person, not a confused one.)
There is not a single credible datum due to uncertain/changing definitions: death/hospitalisation from/with CoVid. Definition of unvaccinated: in UK unvaccinated included, one dose only, two doses with second dose less than 14 days. So all hospitalisations/deaths of people who were vaccinated gets counted as unvaccinated. The definition changed to include the above but also boosted less than 14 days. So many triple vaxxed went into unvaxxed. Since we know vaccination leaves its victims exposed for 14 to 21 days to increased risk of infection, a large number of vaccine-induced cases went into unvaxxed.
All the claims are beset with confounding factors, not just decline of infections, etc due to change of season but attributed to vaccination, but also natural decline down the other side of the Gompertz curve but attributed to vaccination.
The fact is we do not know/cannot know - we probably will never know - how effective the pseudo-vaccines are, or how many people have been hospitalised or died from CoVid.
So true. I close family member just passed after a long battle with cancer. He was too sick to get vaccinated and tested positive a week before he died. Guess who's an 'unvaxxed covid death'?
And had he been vaccinated, but died within 21 to 28 days from date of vaccination, it would be an ‘unvaccinated death’ because it would be calculated his infection may have been during the 14 days after his last jab. How to cook the books.
They use 95% as the maximum vaccination rate and call the resulting estimates for efficacy "conservative". Meanwhile, they have no idea if the true rate is 75%. For all we know, vaccine clinics are injecting thin air for profit.
According to data from Pfizer’s ‘trial’, infection was 0.88% in the placebo group and 0.04% in the active ingredient group. This is a Relative Risk Reduction of 95% but only a 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction - which is negligible. And this was for a cohort of 16 to 45 age and fit, healthy people. It is a puzzle how any vaccine could become more significantly more effective in use than in trial. Of course it cannot. The claims of effectiveness are artefacts of data manipulation and not allowing for confounding factors.
Interestingly once the data had cleaned up and confounding factors not present, that is with Omicron, where the baseline was double vaccinated, in the early exponential phase of the variant epidemic, no seasonal or Gompertz trajectory confounders, the pseudo-vaccines were soon to be seen in negative effectiveness territory where in my opinion they had been all along.
Yes, 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction sounds small. But how do we decide if it's negligible? I'm playing the devil's advocate, but hospitals seem to think that it will keep them from being overrun with infectious patients.
The only way to argue against that is by also considering vaccine harm.
Even when NYC sped up its curve by infecting all the at-risk at once, the hospitals weren't overrun. The only way they will be overrun today -- 2 years later -- is if the vaccine does more harm than good.
Exactly! If your numbers are saying over 100% of the population is vaxxed, your numbers cannot be trusted for anything :/ They mess up even the most basic shit.
Alternately, people are coming in from the neighboring counties to get vaccinated in King County. We saw a bit of this in hospitalization rates in March/April 2020 when it was clear that nursing home residents from Snohomish were being hospitalized in King.
Everyone has an incentive to push up the vax numbers. Clinics probably get paid per dose. Local officials and governors want high numbers to make them look good. Meanwhile, around here they're telling people to get vaxxed, no ID needed. I'm surprised we haven't reached 200 %.
With such clear, understandable, transparent public health information like this, no wonder the majority of King County residents have flocked to get their free jab(s).
If "continuity corrections" and estimate assumptions are provided in lieu of actual age range and vaccination data, then the public can only conclude King County's goal is intentional obfuscation.
The vaccine data never looked good when paying close attention.
50% of COVID vaccine deaths occur in the first 2 days; 80% within the first two weeks. That is the time period that liars in the CDC and media called the vaccine victims "unvaccinated."
That’s the problem. There are no ‘real’ numbers - nobody actually knows what the numbers are. In any case Tricky-Trudie is a mindless blob who can’t count to twenty with his socks on.
Yes and no. There are real numbers, but one must dig for them one-self and then attempt to communicate them, as our host is doing. The medical community has failed us (its "leaders" State captured), and the State only acts to grow our Plato's Cave.
Mr. Trudeau is the empty-gilded-suit. That delivery, and that suit! He wouldn't know Fascism like he doesn't know leadership. He is the Statist's poster child, a puppet really.
Return healthcare (and healthcare insurance) to the private sector (Capitalism), and our society would have handled SARS-CoV-2, no matter its origin (Authoritarian Socialism of the GodXi) as the blip it is, because true Capitalism's State would not get in the way of the People's apprehension of the threat (the "numbers").
I scrolled down to the "Geography" section, and I don't think that data shows what they wish it would show. Out in the boonies, there's still a high ratio of unvaccinated-positive vs. vaccinated/boosted positive, but in the Seattle sections where all the GoodPeople™ live, it's much closer. As if the vaccine hardly protects against Omicron at all or something. Hmmm.
The box when you hover over West Seattle (where I live) shows the text:
"Residents not fully vaccinated are 1.0 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than fully vaccinated residents with a booster.
Residents not fully vaccinated are 0.7 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than fully vaccinated residents without a booster."
As in, the vaccine has a *negative* effect by itself, and with the booster only brings it up to an even chance.
I don't think you'll see *that* finding in the headlines of the Seattle Times...
And here I thought I was getting all caught up. Can the world slow down a bit more? I think in our rush we've been making a few avoidable mistakes (repeatedly).
But then we get accused of misinformation! Such a strange world.
One could cynically argue that this is one task the government didn't screw up.
In the "covid dashboards" I check weekly-- two different states-- we see the exact same thing. Failure to report raw numbers. Insistence on reporting "case rates" and supposed efficacy rate of the vaccines. Continued labeling of all who don't meet their standards of "fully vaccinated" as "unvaccinated." I'd love to see an example of a single state, county, city, or hospital in the U.S. that doesn't do at least one of these things.
Is there any way this way of reporting covid and vaccine data wasn't orchestrated and isn't being followed fairly successfully-- despite the obvious inconveniences and greater amount of number crunching required? It seems like nobody missed the memo here. (I would also note that the U.S., unlike some other countries, seems to be avoiding a "Recovered" section on the ubiquitous covid dashboard. Why not proudly display a statistic that other nations have used patriotically? Again, I am asking as a cynical person, not a confused one.)
Sadly this is likely the case. They got marching orders and they are following.
"So they’re using estimates that in some cases proclaim there are more vaccinated people than actual people in an area".
Seems to have been a very common policy in voting as well.
There is not a single credible datum due to uncertain/changing definitions: death/hospitalisation from/with CoVid. Definition of unvaccinated: in UK unvaccinated included, one dose only, two doses with second dose less than 14 days. So all hospitalisations/deaths of people who were vaccinated gets counted as unvaccinated. The definition changed to include the above but also boosted less than 14 days. So many triple vaxxed went into unvaxxed. Since we know vaccination leaves its victims exposed for 14 to 21 days to increased risk of infection, a large number of vaccine-induced cases went into unvaxxed.
All the claims are beset with confounding factors, not just decline of infections, etc due to change of season but attributed to vaccination, but also natural decline down the other side of the Gompertz curve but attributed to vaccination.
The fact is we do not know/cannot know - we probably will never know - how effective the pseudo-vaccines are, or how many people have been hospitalised or died from CoVid.
So true. I close family member just passed after a long battle with cancer. He was too sick to get vaccinated and tested positive a week before he died. Guess who's an 'unvaxxed covid death'?
And had he been vaccinated, but died within 21 to 28 days from date of vaccination, it would be an ‘unvaccinated death’ because it would be calculated his infection may have been during the 14 days after his last jab. How to cook the books.
I understand why Pfizer would try to fudge the numbers, but for the entire public health response to go along with it is criminal.
Isn't it still criminal for Pfizer to do it?
They use 95% as the maximum vaccination rate and call the resulting estimates for efficacy "conservative". Meanwhile, they have no idea if the true rate is 75%. For all we know, vaccine clinics are injecting thin air for profit.
According to data from Pfizer’s ‘trial’, infection was 0.88% in the placebo group and 0.04% in the active ingredient group. This is a Relative Risk Reduction of 95% but only a 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction - which is negligible. And this was for a cohort of 16 to 45 age and fit, healthy people. It is a puzzle how any vaccine could become more significantly more effective in use than in trial. Of course it cannot. The claims of effectiveness are artefacts of data manipulation and not allowing for confounding factors.
Interestingly once the data had cleaned up and confounding factors not present, that is with Omicron, where the baseline was double vaccinated, in the early exponential phase of the variant epidemic, no seasonal or Gompertz trajectory confounders, the pseudo-vaccines were soon to be seen in negative effectiveness territory where in my opinion they had been all along.
Yes, 0.84% Absolute Risk Reduction sounds small. But how do we decide if it's negligible? I'm playing the devil's advocate, but hospitals seem to think that it will keep them from being overrun with infectious patients.
The only way to argue against that is by also considering vaccine harm.
Because 0.84% is negligible! It is risk of infection, not risk of developing disease.
But didn't they have pretty fast and loose rules with the vaccine cohort on actually testing them ? So, even the 0.84% number is bogus.
Even when NYC sped up its curve by infecting all the at-risk at once, the hospitals weren't overrun. The only way they will be overrun today -- 2 years later -- is if the vaccine does more harm than good.
Or if the hospitals are cutting capacity. Which they have been, deliberately or inadvertently.
Exactly! If your numbers are saying over 100% of the population is vaxxed, your numbers cannot be trusted for anything :/ They mess up even the most basic shit.
Or maybe public health officials, who have embraced the "noble lie", want the unvaxxed to seem like a smaller minority. They did it before when they said 99% of hospital staff were fully vaxxed but neglected to mention the many exemptions. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/on-air/as-seen-on/mt-sinais-long-beach-site-to-temporarily-close-due-to-vax-related-staff-shortages/3415030/
Alternately, people are coming in from the neighboring counties to get vaccinated in King County. We saw a bit of this in hospitalization rates in March/April 2020 when it was clear that nursing home residents from Snohomish were being hospitalized in King.
Everyone has an incentive to push up the vax numbers. Clinics probably get paid per dose. Local officials and governors want high numbers to make them look good. Meanwhile, around here they're telling people to get vaxxed, no ID needed. I'm surprised we haven't reached 200 %.
With such clear, understandable, transparent public health information like this, no wonder the majority of King County residents have flocked to get their free jab(s).
I mean, how could you not trust the science??
If "continuity corrections" and estimate assumptions are provided in lieu of actual age range and vaccination data, then the public can only conclude King County's goal is intentional obfuscation.
Wow.
Auditors who get caught doing that kind of outcome-based chicanery with numbers go to prison.
The vaccine data never looked good when paying close attention.
50% of COVID vaccine deaths occur in the first 2 days; 80% within the first two weeks. That is the time period that liars in the CDC and media called the vaccine victims "unvaccinated."
That lie made nearly all the difference.
And the unvaccinated vaccinated are at increased vaccine-induced infection risk during their period of ‘unvaccination’.
Would someone please explain the REAL numbers to Mr. Trudeau?
And tell him Mr. Putin is standing down. It would be okay to follow suit.
That’s the problem. There are no ‘real’ numbers - nobody actually knows what the numbers are. In any case Tricky-Trudie is a mindless blob who can’t count to twenty with his socks on.
Yes and no. There are real numbers, but one must dig for them one-self and then attempt to communicate them, as our host is doing. The medical community has failed us (its "leaders" State captured), and the State only acts to grow our Plato's Cave.
Mr. Trudeau is the empty-gilded-suit. That delivery, and that suit! He wouldn't know Fascism like he doesn't know leadership. He is the Statist's poster child, a puppet really.
Return healthcare (and healthcare insurance) to the private sector (Capitalism), and our society would have handled SARS-CoV-2, no matter its origin (Authoritarian Socialism of the GodXi) as the blip it is, because true Capitalism's State would not get in the way of the People's apprehension of the threat (the "numbers").
As it is, we experiment on the human race's mRNA.
Mr Castros little boy sure don't like to hear the truth.
I scrolled down to the "Geography" section, and I don't think that data shows what they wish it would show. Out in the boonies, there's still a high ratio of unvaccinated-positive vs. vaccinated/boosted positive, but in the Seattle sections where all the GoodPeople™ live, it's much closer. As if the vaccine hardly protects against Omicron at all or something. Hmmm.
The box when you hover over West Seattle (where I live) shows the text:
"Residents not fully vaccinated are 1.0 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than fully vaccinated residents with a booster.
Residents not fully vaccinated are 0.7 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than fully vaccinated residents without a booster."
As in, the vaccine has a *negative* effect by itself, and with the booster only brings it up to an even chance.
I don't think you'll see *that* finding in the headlines of the Seattle Times...
Quick! Down the memory hole!
Apologies for the delay here, Substack was acting up earlier. (Not that you even knew it was delayed, I guess.)
And here I thought I was getting all caught up. Can the world slow down a bit more? I think in our rush we've been making a few avoidable mistakes (repeatedly).