I continually see memes quoting statistics that claim to show the ineffectiveness of vaccines.
Anybody with even middle school level math competency should be able to see through the misrepresentation of these statistics.
A recent example stated that 85.7% of deaths over a particular week in Scotland were vaccinated people. The conclusion drawn was that the vaccines don't work because the vast majority of people dying were vaccinated.
What was left out in the post was that 94% of Scotland has received at least 1 dose and 74% has received 3 doses. That leaves only less than 6% of the population unvaxxed accounting for 12% of the deaths. This data suggests (suggests, doesn't prove anything), just the opposite of the conclusion drawn.
Misuse of statistics makes people look either stupid or dishonest. If you see something posted like this, you should immediately question your source. Anybody passing off this kind of stuff isn't vetting their sources or their numbers either through actual intent to mislead or sheer stupidity. Either way, the source cannot be trusted. Trusting such a source is just allowing yourself to be duped (which makes you a dupe) or a liar yourself.
Hold yourself to higher standards of integrity, please, everybody. It doesn't help anybody to lie about facts or pass on lies about facts.
If the vax is "safe and effective" eg 95% as we've seen stated by agencies, then it would be impossible to have this 85% statistic given the high vax rates. Also, we've routinely done the normalization for prior odds. I recall proving 5-6x more deadly as far back as late last year. Even last Spring we knew the side effects were 30-40x baseline. So, what to do when confronted with the evidence? Oh, I guess you chose to attack the person rather than the create a compelling counter argument...
You don't understand the math. Take for example, if 100% of the population were vaccinated, a very small number would still die. In that case ,100% of the deaths would be vaccinated people. But that doesn't mean the vaccine is 0% effective right? It just means of the pool from which it is possible to die of COVID, they were all vaccinated.
So if we have some population in which 87.5% of the deaths are vaccinated, but 94% of the population has received at least one dose of vaccine (assuming they count any dosage as "vaccinated"), then the 87,5% death rate means nothing about vaccine effectiveness.
Now, you want to say the vaccines are said to be 95% effective, but that was before Delta and Omicron. No one says the vaccine is 95% effective against these new variants. That data discussed here refers to he Omicron variant against which the vaccine is not said to be 95% effective. It is said that the chances of hospitalization with 3 doses are 5 to 10 times less than without the vaccine.
You remember? Let's see the data and the figures.
No, I only demonstrated that you all do not know math. I will bet that if you provide me with your data and methodology that you cite above, I will once again demonstrate that you do not know math.
You're entirely disregarding the fact they died of covid. You're not even disregarding, you're trying to pretend anything in a needle is 100% effective.
You probably think heroin addicts are the healthiest people on earth because "muh injection"
Woosh. Over your head.
Calling you out on your bullshit is not "woosh". You're just a pathetic liar
You haven't demonstrated anything so far so if you're planning in doing so you better get to it. Meanwhile I can assure you, I know math so I'm not intimidated by you in the least
You know math? Ha ha ha ha. I don't think so.
Let's see if that's true. David cited this article.
From the data in the table alone, what percentage of the total deaths from COVID were unvaxxed? What % were Fully + Fully & boosted? Which % is higher?
What % of the population in the study were unvaxxed? What % of the population was Fully + Fully-boosted?
Now using that very straightforward data, explain how that data support a conclusion that the vaccines are not effective?
(You might want to quibble with 95% effective vs 75% effective, but any amount of effectiveness is good if it results in fewer deaths, right?)
Like I said, I've already done the math a long time ago. You're claiming we can't do it, you have the burden of proof here. Calculate the odds and cite your sources... if you can