Very interesting. I knew they were liberal with their definition of 'unvaccinated' but didn't realise the extensions were extending exponentially! I also recall the fact that vaccinated and unvaccinated were put on different treatment protocols in hospital thereby guaranteeing that the (truly) unvaccinated would get sicker and the vaccinated would stand a better chance. That helped them with their statistical analysis. There was no clear reason why on admission to hospital that the staff would need to know a person's vaccination status, but of course, thanks to digital health records, they automatically knew and you could not opt out of that being shared. I am in the UK and I can honestly say that I do not trust our hospitals/NHS at all. Partly because of appalling past experience , but also because I know that they are still using drugs like remdesivir and monclonal antibodies and still testing for that virus that most probably does not exist. There seems to be a massive media effort to turn the young against the old and see them as a burden and at the moment in this country we are consistently told that we must sacrifice our lives for the sake of our so called 'health' system. The fact that our 'health' system has long ceased to have anything to do with health seems to have escaped many people, although more and more people have woken up, not near enough unfortunatley.
I don't get it. can you explain more how the cheap trick works? I get how not counting the people who got infected within two week of vaccination is questionable. But after two weeks, if they get infected, doesn't that count against the efficacy? sorry for my denseness.
It's all about the early distortion of the data that weights the total outcome in favor of the intervention. For the sake of simplicity let's say the jab does nothing at all, totally neutral, a tap on the nose. You start with 100 people, 50 jabbed and 50 unjabbed. If 10 of the jabbed and 8 of the unjabbed just happen (thanks to random chance) to get Covid in the first two weeks, you rebrand the jabbed as unjabbed and lo, now 100% of your Covid cases are in the evil unjabbed. No one who is vaccinated got Covid, it’s a miracle! 100% efficacy! Publish that shit! If in the next two weeks ten more of each original group gets sick, efficacy is still inflated for the jabbed, because you can still say only 10 ouf of 50 got it a month after vaccination, where in the unjabbed group a whopping 18 got it. So efficacy “waned” a bit but is still overwhelmingly positive. Etc goes the game.
that makes no sense (I know, that is your point). if you define everyone as unvaccinated in the first 2 weeks, you can't have an efficacy of the vaccine yet. wow, that is just bad math, even one month out. that's just evil. do the researchers know they are doing this? wow. thank you for the explanation.
Oh, they know. They definitely know. And the journalists who propagated it with all of the hospital "dashboards" especially during the summer of '21 knew it too. If you looked at any state data during that time, you would see that the hospitalized were overwhelmingly (in most places) unvaxxed, but again that was because they were categorizing unvaxxed so broadly and however it suited them. It created a sense of urgency and legitimacy behind the mandates and deliberately villainized the unvaxxed. Follow the (political) science.
I think some disagreeableness is warranted given the recent happenings of our world. I prefer it to the alternative which is despondency.
These evil folks will get their just reward in the end . God will not have his creation messed with beyond what is humanly tolerable.
great writing! your outrage is justified.
Wow, just wow!
Very interesting. I knew they were liberal with their definition of 'unvaccinated' but didn't realise the extensions were extending exponentially! I also recall the fact that vaccinated and unvaccinated were put on different treatment protocols in hospital thereby guaranteeing that the (truly) unvaccinated would get sicker and the vaccinated would stand a better chance. That helped them with their statistical analysis. There was no clear reason why on admission to hospital that the staff would need to know a person's vaccination status, but of course, thanks to digital health records, they automatically knew and you could not opt out of that being shared. I am in the UK and I can honestly say that I do not trust our hospitals/NHS at all. Partly because of appalling past experience , but also because I know that they are still using drugs like remdesivir and monclonal antibodies and still testing for that virus that most probably does not exist. There seems to be a massive media effort to turn the young against the old and see them as a burden and at the moment in this country we are consistently told that we must sacrifice our lives for the sake of our so called 'health' system. The fact that our 'health' system has long ceased to have anything to do with health seems to have escaped many people, although more and more people have woken up, not near enough unfortunatley.
I don't get it. can you explain more how the cheap trick works? I get how not counting the people who got infected within two week of vaccination is questionable. But after two weeks, if they get infected, doesn't that count against the efficacy? sorry for my denseness.
It's all about the early distortion of the data that weights the total outcome in favor of the intervention. For the sake of simplicity let's say the jab does nothing at all, totally neutral, a tap on the nose. You start with 100 people, 50 jabbed and 50 unjabbed. If 10 of the jabbed and 8 of the unjabbed just happen (thanks to random chance) to get Covid in the first two weeks, you rebrand the jabbed as unjabbed and lo, now 100% of your Covid cases are in the evil unjabbed. No one who is vaccinated got Covid, it’s a miracle! 100% efficacy! Publish that shit! If in the next two weeks ten more of each original group gets sick, efficacy is still inflated for the jabbed, because you can still say only 10 ouf of 50 got it a month after vaccination, where in the unjabbed group a whopping 18 got it. So efficacy “waned” a bit but is still overwhelmingly positive. Etc goes the game.
that makes no sense (I know, that is your point). if you define everyone as unvaccinated in the first 2 weeks, you can't have an efficacy of the vaccine yet. wow, that is just bad math, even one month out. that's just evil. do the researchers know they are doing this? wow. thank you for the explanation.
Oh, they know. They definitely know. And the journalists who propagated it with all of the hospital "dashboards" especially during the summer of '21 knew it too. If you looked at any state data during that time, you would see that the hospitalized were overwhelmingly (in most places) unvaxxed, but again that was because they were categorizing unvaxxed so broadly and however it suited them. It created a sense of urgency and legitimacy behind the mandates and deliberately villainized the unvaxxed. Follow the (political) science.