CDC’s own data shows 3-4x more new cases in vaxxed vs unvaxxed. Is this even a treatment?
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Regardless of any kind of discussion in to how real COVID is, These statistics are bad and misleading. The percentage of infected with vaccine is data that is routinely being misunderstood. By itself it is a useless statistic.
Here is why. If we had 1000 people vaxxed and 10 people not vaxxed then out of that population of 1010 people we had 2 people get infected, 1 vaxxed and 1 non-vaxxed this study would report 50% of the infected had the vaxx. This would give the impression that it is equally effective to have the vaxx or not. As well it gets worse with larger numbers. if the pool is 102 people are infected and 100 are vaxxed and 2 are not it would show that 99% of the infected are vaxxed giving an impression that the vaxx is worthless or even more deadly, but a comparison would show 20% of non-vaxxed are infected as opposed to 10% of vaxxed.
The appropriate statistic to study would by non-vaxxed infected vs vaxxed infected.
So why present the data in this way? Cause they are hiding something else. They do not want a comparative graph of % of vaxxed infected vs % of non-vaxxed infected because it looks more like for ever 100,000 vaxed 40 are getting infected for every 100,000 non-vaxxed 300 are getting infected. The most damaging number in this case becomes the pool. Out of a population of 200,000 people only 340 or ~0.2% are getting infected at all! The real statistics breaks down the entire model/industry of this garbage.
This is the CDC creating bad data and statistics either on purpose or out of shear incompetence.
We can do this normalization. I think we’re at ~70% vaxxed so the 3-4x incident rate in the sample is basically the same as saying there’s basically no difference in case occurrence rates between groups (since 70% is 2.7x the 30%)
Problem is we DONT have 100% of people vaxxed so that MSM argument is just to mislead.
How come you can't present that argument with actual data instead of a straw man statistic?
Facts are if 60% of a population is vaccinated that is actually barely more than half the population in not jvaxxed so you would expect a huge majority of infections in the unvaxxed population.
Instead you are seeing a pretty high number of infections that vaxxed half, but then they say, "well just imagine if everyone was vaxxed please, that way we can say that if someone got infected when everyone was vaxxed 100% of cases would be vaxxed".
Facts are 60% and even 70-80% is not even close to the same thing as 100% and so that logic does not fly..
If 40% are unvaxxed you should expect hardly any infections in the vaxxed population comparitively not almost half, or more.
Put it this way.nif 50% of population is vaccinated, and 50% of the infections are in the vaccinated population, then the vaccine is showing to not work at all.
Not to mention that the US now claims that 70% of our population has had 1 jab and close to 60 have had two jabs.
They are claiming that over 90 percent of new cases are in the unvaxxed population.
If there is a virus, and if the vaccines are effective that is the type of ratio you should expect, that because 60-70% of the population is vaccinated, 90% of new cases are in the unvaxxed population and roughly 10% are in the vaxxed population.
But in the same breath as proclaimed ng that, they are trying to explain to you that in other countries like israel, or in places like the UK where in both regions have about 60% of their populations vaxxed the reason for the extraordinary amount of infections in the vaccinated population is due to the fact that so they have a 60% vaccination rate. They go into explain this by asking you to imagine that it is not 60% vaccinated, but instead imagine it's 100% vaccinated and then show you how it works that way.
Again, in the us they are claiming that 60% vaccinated means 90% of infections are in the unvaccinated, but in other countries 60% vaccinated means that 50+% of infections will be in the vaccinated population because if 100% of the people were vaccinated all the cases would be in the vaccinated group.
Triple think
Yeah essentially there’s clearly no absolute risk reduction as measured by difference in case incidence between groups. Even if you normalize for preference this remains true.
It is racist to do your own research, get the jab homophobe.
The NPCs still say that it's the unvaccinated who are the cases, are getting sick, and are in the empty full ICUs for a fake virus. The deny what their masters are straight up telling them. They need to download the latest patch. Even if you show them data suggesting they are getting sick, they will just deny it or they will say they already knew and it's everyone else's fault after having denied it. There's no reasoning with them.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7031e2-H.pdf
Covid = SARS and it is a very real virus that attacks the lungs (mainly). This is just a weaponized version of SARS that spreads easier than any virus in human history. Why make it you ask? So people will come running to get the death vax. The death rate for SARS is less than 1%. The death rate for the vax is already at 5% and climbing.