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

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.

This has nothing to do with my argument. I see anti-vaxxers making false and misleading claims, distorting studies, and misinterpreting statistics. Thus the title: Please learn math. If you're refusing to get vaccinated so you can stick it the man, more power to you. I respect that. Just don't misrepresent statistics in embarrassingly false ways to do it. Stand up and say: I refuse to take the vaccine for moral, political, whatever reasons. That makes sense.

Please make an argument that makes sense.

This is like a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we had followed medical advice from the start, we could have thwarted the virus early. But the health community said if we didn't thwart this then the virus would continually to mutate out of control. That's exactly what happened. The more times a virus replicates, the more opportunity it has to mutate into more lethal variants. It's all about the math.

To be fair, the problem wasn't just the population of crazy, math and science phobic Americans. Even if the US had complied with health experts, huge populations around the world weren't adequately vaccinated giving the virus ample opportunity to mutate. So we're not entirely on the hook for all of this (though we could have done more to help the world get vaccinated).

We missed that window of opportunity so now we're living with the virus. The vaccine isn't 100% or even 90% effective against new variants. Maybe over time the vaccine will be less and less effective vs the virus. The flu vaccine is sometimes only 40% effective. But we're living with this thing now, so that's how it will be.

Keep arguing against the vaccine. Don't get vaccinated. I don't care. What I care about is that numbers aren't misrepresented. It's about the math. Please learn math.

Fully vaccinated means "fully vaccinated." I've been clear about that in all my posts. Health officials have stated that one or two doses are much less effective than 3 doses or 3 doses + booster. So why should people not fully vaccinated be included with the fully vaccinated?

But you could do that math, too, if you thought it would make the case better. Notably, you did not do that. Why? Because it doesn't really help you. So let's throw in the insufficiently vaccinated population.

Deaths Dec 14 - Apr 17 Partially Vaccinated: 881 Fully Vaccinated: 2,832 Fully+Booster: 1,995 Total: 5,708

Unvaccinated: 9,512

Total Deaths: 15,220

%Deaths Partially or Fully vaccinated: 5,708/15,220 = 37.5% %Deaths Unvaccinated: 62.5%

So congratulations, you managed to argue that if you include insufficiently vaccinated people with fully vaccinated people, you move the needle about 4%.

Now. If you could have done the math, or just look at the figure and make reasonable estimations, you would have known that your argument wasn't going to help you much. The % of deaths of unvaccinated are still far greater than insufficiently and fully vaccinated people. This is true despite the fact that there are more total people in the vaccinated pool:

Partially + Fully Vaccinated Total: 1,066,884 Unvaccinated: 945,183 Total: 2,012,067

%Population Partially + Fully Vaccinated: 53% %Population Unvaccinated: 47%

So if vaccines were as effective as say a plecebo, you would expect no difference in % deaths amongst all the groups. Instead we find that % of unvaccinated far outweighs % of vaccinated deaths.

You guys continually try to fudge these numbers are try to find a way to build cognitive to walls around your false beliefs. Or you're just lying.

Woosh. Over your head.

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?)

I didn't change any goalposts. Show me anybody stating that the vaccines are 95% effective vs Delta or Omicron. You made the claim, now you can try to back it up.

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:

From March 21, 2022 to April 17, 2022, compared to fully vaccinated cases, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 3 times more likely to die as a result of their illness.

DavidColeIntrepid1 points52 minutes ago 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.

1. It's cherry-picked data--only one week.
2. It leaves out totals. Let's compare totals:

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.

Yes, it did. Did you read the study? I don't think you did.

I know you want to say that anybody who calls you on your misinformation is a "handshake" or "glowie" or whatever other thought ending memes you want to throw out. But the fact that your response is just to gainsay, wave hands, and use thought-enders, tells me that you've given up trying to defend your misinformation.

You're either lying to yourself or you're lying to everybody else.

You didn't inform readers of your post of the numerous disclaimers in the report:

They state that a simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes, because there are a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work.

You didn't mention that in Scotland, a high number of people are vaccinated:

In Scotland, there has been a very high uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. As of 04 February 2022, 89.7% of 18 years old and over have received a second dose and 74.4% have received a third dose or booster of COVID-19 vaccine. No vaccine is 100% effective and it’s expected that cases, hospitalisations, and deaths from COVID-19 will occur in the vaccinated population as well as the unvaccinated population.

Evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccines are over 75% effective at preventing a severe outcome of COVID-19. COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths are strongly driven by older age, with most deaths occurring in those over 70 years old and having multiple other illnesses.

Data and rates presented in this section are not a measure of vaccine effectiveness

These are all direct quotes from your source. None of which you mention in your little meme post. The purpose is clearly to mislead people into thinking the vaccines are not effective, just the opposite of what the data show.

So if you read the report, why did you pass on misleading information about it? Were you trying to be honest?

I literally quoted the data from the study. I did not "extrapolate" it.

oh dang. I think I should have taken a left at Albuquerque.

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.

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.

You remember? Let's see the data and the figures.

Oh, I guess you chose to attack the person rather than the create a compelling counter argument...

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.

Can you provide some data that is more than your limited set of direct observation?

This is all utter nonsense.

I used the word "suggest" in an academic way to mean that we can make only tentative inferences from the data as it's presented. In fact, the report itself says that the data in the report does not support inferences regarding vaccine effectiveness:

Data and rates presented in this section are not a measure of vaccine effectiveness

And, yet, that's exactly how the report is used by anti-vaxxers who can't do math and can't read.

The report, the same report used for the 87.5% figure warns:

There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data.

Which is exactly what was done in the cases I'm talking about and the specific case I referred to.

The report explicitly says, with emphasis:

Comparison of hospitalisation and death rates is therefore inappropriate.

And, yet, that's exactly what anti-vaxxers do with the data.

This should be an utter embarrassment to people making these arguments, but no, they just ignorantly trundle along providing live examples of Dunning-Kruger.

This reply has no substance. It's just a cowardly attempt to save face. You can't read the report obviously and you can't do math. I have demonstrated that.

The report I mentioned disaggregated all that data.

Also, I'd be willing to bet my $500,000 house that you have no credible source for your statistic that "69% of people who have never made a post or comment are 420% gay."

While my source for all my data is the same source your COVID data came from.

Do that math.

I'm willing to take the $500,000 in cash, collectible cars, or real estate. No Russian yachts please.

They are numbers from the actual report you are citing.

Here are some more:

Age Standardised Mortality Rate per 100,000 with 95% confidence intervals:

Booster or 3 doses: 1.50 (1.15 - 1.85) Unvaxxed 10.95 (3.40 - 18.50)

The report you are citing states:

the death rate in individuals that received a booster or 3rd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 4.6 and 9.5 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

So the question is why are you misrepresenting this report?

Tucker Carlson has endorsed the political system of Hungary, which Freedom House (a conservative non-profit) ranks as only partially free due to its suppression of the opposition.

If we support freedom and democracy, I'd have to conclude that Tucker is not our side.

Here is another with no commentary at all:

94% of Scottish population over the age of 18 is vaccinated. 6% is not vaccinated. 88% of deaths that week were vaccinated. 12% of deaths were not vaccinated.

Figure the math. No conclusions drawn by me here at all.

haha. So I see the denizens of free speech can't handle the truth.

I've posted several "proofs" that this is misleading. I guess they get removed because I guess math is against community standards.

94% of Scotland is vaccinated. 6% is not. 12% of deaths were unvaccinated people. Plain and simple. You should be able to do the math yourself.

I note the crickets in response to this reply.