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.
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.
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."
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...
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.)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Apologies for the delay here, Substack was acting up earlier. (Not that you even knew it was delayed, I guess.)