We are being told that (repeated) Covid-19 jabs protect the recipients from severe outcomes. Apparently they do not consider death a severe outcome. Here's the proof.
They are confirmed by data from Norway: the ratio between 'unvaccinated' : 'any number of doses vaccinated' is now 1 : 10, according to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health
I have to admit, I really dislike this “per 100k” business. I rarely see a clear definition of the denominator — is it definitely vax/vax or vax/all, or by population in that age group, etc.? Always seems to leave lots of room for funny business
They could have been more open and upfront with their calculations, even as a small print at the bottom of the page, right? I wonder why they aren't, ever? No idea...
You can draw different conclusions depending on whats chosen, which means they can choose a denominator to support the conclusion they want. I always feel like looking at a house built on quicksand with those plots. Could also be there is a clear convention, and this is my non biologist background showing
I love the way you put this "... floored at this fragile period in their otherwise promising lives". Otherwise promising lives? Probably, I guess all lives show some promise.
It's funny that anyone would think the vaccine free are "hesitant" at this point.
Great analysis - thanks. Just a question about this section - "The resurrections of some citizens going into Easter, according to the Public Health Ontario data, should not be too surprising; their numbers being not so high as to totally invalidate the following conclusions.
We see that the unvaccinated get hospitalized about 3 times more often than the average Ontarian (although a far cry from 12-22 times), to the advantage of the fully vaccinated and the boosted."
Would that be per 100,000 because just on raw numbers the hospital numbers have shown approx 80% vaccinated and 20% unvaccinated since Easter.
I was writing up about the period right before Easter though. If 20% of the sick are unvaccinated now, it means it is even better now, as it was 31% before Easter... Or worse for the jabbed.
It's a rate, may be per person as well. 11.2% of unvaccinated account for 7.2% of deaths in a period of time. So, if there were 1000 people dead, one would expect 112 unvacinated dead IF the vaccination status didn't play any role. But if a considerably smaller number of dead turn out to be unvaccinated, that would imply that being unvaccinated is healthier than not. If there were no unvaccinated dead at all, it would mean it is strongly beneficial to be unvacinated. And vice versa. Did I understand your question?
Rate per 100,000 (7-day average) is the average rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 for each vaccination status for the previous 7 days as noted. Rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 is calculated by dividing the number of cases for a vaccination status, by the total number of people with the same vaccination status, and then multiplying by 100,000.
Beautiful graphs. Somehow, they don't hash out with the "enhanced epidemiological summary" reports. What's in the denominators, you ask? Trust us!
Also, they lump together different categories of the jabbed and unvaccinated. Every document-producing team seems to try and obfuscate the raw data in their unique way. That is called creativity. At least we know to be suspicious.
Thanks for the data points, Andreas!
They are confirmed by data from Norway: the ratio between 'unvaccinated' : 'any number of doses vaccinated' is now 1 : 10, according to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Check out my work work here: https://fackel.substack.com/p/covid-in-norway-data-for-week-16
Love it!
I have to admit, I really dislike this “per 100k” business. I rarely see a clear definition of the denominator — is it definitely vax/vax or vax/all, or by population in that age group, etc.? Always seems to leave lots of room for funny business
They could have been more open and upfront with their calculations, even as a small print at the bottom of the page, right? I wonder why they aren't, ever? No idea...
You can draw different conclusions depending on whats chosen, which means they can choose a denominator to support the conclusion they want. I always feel like looking at a house built on quicksand with those plots. Could also be there is a clear convention, and this is my non biologist background showing
I bet if pressed you'd come up with something ... :)
LOL!
But I gave you solid numbers, right?
Sorry no you’re good — didn’t mean to imply funny business on your part!
I love the way you put this "... floored at this fragile period in their otherwise promising lives". Otherwise promising lives? Probably, I guess all lives show some promise.
It's funny that anyone would think the vaccine free are "hesitant" at this point.
Time to change to "obstinate", "intransigent", "extremist", "anti-social", "far-right", "misogynist", "fascist", "white-supremacist"?
Yes! 😄 I would say I'm not vaccine hesitant, I'm "vaccine hell-no, that is never going in my body".
Belligerent?
Squarely in your camp!
Great analysis - thanks. Just a question about this section - "The resurrections of some citizens going into Easter, according to the Public Health Ontario data, should not be too surprising; their numbers being not so high as to totally invalidate the following conclusions.
We see that the unvaccinated get hospitalized about 3 times more often than the average Ontarian (although a far cry from 12-22 times), to the advantage of the fully vaccinated and the boosted."
Would that be per 100,000 because just on raw numbers the hospital numbers have shown approx 80% vaccinated and 20% unvaccinated since Easter.
I was writing up about the period right before Easter though. If 20% of the sick are unvaccinated now, it means it is even better now, as it was 31% before Easter... Or worse for the jabbed.
Here's today's numbers in hospital and ICU by vaccination status https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data
It's a rate, may be per person as well. 11.2% of unvaccinated account for 7.2% of deaths in a period of time. So, if there were 1000 people dead, one would expect 112 unvacinated dead IF the vaccination status didn't play any role. But if a considerably smaller number of dead turn out to be unvaccinated, that would imply that being unvaccinated is healthier than not. If there were no unvaccinated dead at all, it would mean it is strongly beneficial to be unvacinated. And vice versa. Did I understand your question?
Yes, good explanation, thanks.
From: https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data
Rate per 100,000 (7-day average) is the average rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 for each vaccination status for the previous 7 days as noted. Rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 is calculated by dividing the number of cases for a vaccination status, by the total number of people with the same vaccination status, and then multiplying by 100,000.
Beautiful graphs. Somehow, they don't hash out with the "enhanced epidemiological summary" reports. What's in the denominators, you ask? Trust us!
Also, they lump together different categories of the jabbed and unvaccinated. Every document-producing team seems to try and obfuscate the raw data in their unique way. That is called creativity. At least we know to be suspicious.
Here is a jab from NSW Health, Andreas:
https://twitter.com/NSWHealth/status/1519225034799210496
I don't want to even think about it - it is too upsetting.
Just tweet a link to my post underneath.
Alas, I am a bird refusenik. However, I've dumped your post on Gab, GETTR, Telegram.
Expect a knock on your door, or roof, soon....
Even after Musk took it over? Get on with the times, Barry! We are entering a brave new era of freedom of dis-mis-mal-information for all!
Dr Simon Goddek tried it immediately with DrGoddek - how crafty. He lasted 4 hours. lol!
These stables (nests) will need to be flushed.
There are simple solutions. The content providers on the bird migrate to one of the following (others are on two or more):
1. Telegram - the best by far for publishing info, vids, pics
2. GETTR
3. Gab
4. Minds
5. Substack
All have one superior functionality than the bird: the character limit.
Remember, it is we who feed the bird, especially the content providers, otherwise it is just a worthless app.
Conclusion:
We are the problem; not the bird.
As an author, can you please advise Substack to add a feature to allow us to follow some people, like other social media.
He dead now.