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.
Ahhh....so you ARE referring to VAERS data. It doesn't matter if anything else exists, if you use a database that itself says it could be inaccurate and that causal links can't be inferred, then your results and conclusions are literally garbage.
From Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data:
From the Disclaimer on the dataset page:
So you think that you can use information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, and unverifiable to draw conclusions about causal connections?
I want to know how you justify that.