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.
https://thecountersignal.com/99-per-cent-covid-deaths-in-canada-among-vaccinated/
"Learn maffs nigga"
Do you know what "cherry picking" is?
So the claim here is that in one week, 222 vaccinated people died vs, only 1 unvaccinated person.
Let's look at that data:
Unvaxxed deaths through April 10: 9,511
Unvaxxed deaths through April 17: 9,512
So yes, it's true that there was only 1 unvaxxed death reported to PHAS from April 10 - April 17.
Fully vaxxed deaths through April 10: (2,770 + 1,835=) 4,605
Fully vaxxed through April 17: (2,832 + 1,995=) 4,827
That's a difference of 222 and includes Fully vaxxed and Fully + booster).
So that's correct. But we're missing a big a problem when it's reported as 99.6% of deaths are fully vaccinated.
Unvaxxed deaths through April 17: 9,512
Fully Vaxxed deaths through April 10: 4,827
Total: 14,339
%Deaths (Unvaxxed): 9,512/14,339 = 66.3%
%Deaths (Vaxxed): 4,827/14,339 = 33.7%
So nearly 2/3 of the total deaths (uvaxxed + fully vaxxed) are unvaxxed vs only 1/3 vaxxed.
So tell me how reporting this as evidence that vaccines don't work is not misleading? Anybody who can do math can look at the data presented and if it weren't such a serious subject just laugh out loud at the gross stupidity of the person who wrote that article. But there are enough people on the right who just don't have the math skills to do that so they think this article says something that supports their preconceived ideas. It's just confirmation bias.
That you would cite this and some argument against me is just laughable. It doesn't help your case in anyway. And I know your responses to me will be entirely vacuous. Meaningless. Insults with no analysis or argument to support them. Please, try harder.
We can go further, let's look at the n for each case.
For unvaxxed the n is: 945,183 For fully vaxxed the n is: (723,415 + 250,951=) 974,366 Total: 1,919,549
%Pop unvaxxed: 49.2% %Pop vaxxed: 50.8%
So all things being equal, we would expect the total deaths to be roughly 50-50. But instead it breaks down to 66:34.
Once again, you only reveal your inability to understand the math.
Feed me some more.
“Detailed case information received by PHAC from provinces and territories, since December 14, 2020”
What is that? 3 days after the vax was offered to the public. What was the vax rate for the 1st few months to year? Don’t you think that can skew the “totals” drastically?
“It leaves out totals. Let's compare totals:”
Anyone with basic math skills and reasoning would know that the “totals” date back to a time when the mass majority of the population was unvaccinated… making the totals completely unusable without adjusting for vaccination rate over time.
Surprised someone with your math skills could overlook something so obvious
All this and the argument I responded to was using data from ONE week to make the case against the vaccines.
Besides, your argument is spurious.
What part of my argument is wrong? Are you claiming that the totals DON’T date back to December 14, 2020… it does. Or are you claiming the vaccination rate wasn’t very low in the first few months of the vaccine rollout... it was.
You are arguing as if they pulled a random week out that showed the data they wanted to see. They used the last reported week. The data is following a trend showing lower and lower efficacy over time.
Is this one week’s data the strongest evidence ever? No.
Is it note worthy? Yes.
Is it in line with several other sources showing a decline in efficacy over time? Yes.
This needs to adjust for prior odds over time or it's meaningless because, as you state elsewhere, the vaccine rate changes drastically over time. Need to find rolling cumulative average of a properly normalized series of odds. Last I did this vaccine was 5-6x more dangerous than doing nothing. The reason is because you can't just look at deaths, you most compare any outcome that is worse than the odds of doing nothing... ie. All serious negative adverse events.
You can look at deaths. If you are considering whether the vaccine prevents deaths, you look at deaths.
If you want to look at imaginary "vaccine injuries" maybe you have a point. Otherwise you don't. The OP was a direct response to a claim based on a single week that 99% of deaths were vaccinated people.
There are indeed many reasons to not just look at straight forward comparisons in order to determine vaccine effectiveness. But my OP was in a direct response to someone who was doing that exactly. And I used those numbers to show how that was completely spurious. So you agree with me: it's not a legitimate method for determining vaccine effectiveness.
Here is a study I will accept:
NEJM Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
So you have literally the most damaging vaccine ever created as measured by VAERS and your solution is to dismiss all this evidence as imaginary? Like I said before, change the goalposts to fit the narrative so it seems
You're still not quoting anything. You're just lying, glowie.
haha. keep telling yourself that. Like I said, you have no facts on your side, just misleading memes.
Here's a quote directly from the Canadian government document cited:
You cited nothing