Am I reading this data correct? 18.4% of unvaxed represent 19.3% of hospitalizations? So statistically speaking, the vaccine did nothing to prevent hospitalizations?

submitted by HiddenFox from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

The two numbers listed there are independent of one another. One is relative percentage of cases, and the other relative percentage of hospitalizations. Two additional numbers would be necessary to really understand the meaning and effect of the vaccines: the percentage of the total population that is vaccinated (regardless of whether they got sick or not) - broken down the same way it is broken down in these numbers; and the percentage of "cases" which are represented by hospitalizations. I'm assuming in that second number that every "hospitalization" falls into a subset of the "cases" number, being a more specifically broken down subcategory of "cases".

Without those additional data, it's hard to draw firm conclusions about the relative percentages you found.

That said, these data (and similar numbers from Scotland before they started screwing around with them) make it crystal clear that these vaccines do not prevent people from getting covid. They seem to marginally lower the probability of illness, hospitalization and death for a limited time (seemingly ~3 months), but that is not remotely the same thing as prevention. A true vaccine stops spread of a disease within the vaccinated population. A vaccinated person will not interact with the pathogen for which they are vaccinated. It is now beyond clear that "vaccinated" are acquiring, becoming sick with, and passing along covid to others. In other words, the vaccine is a failure in those individuals. Given numbers like the ones you show here (and again, Scotland had similar numbers for months), calling these vaccine failures "breakthrough" (which implies a rare event, less than 5% of your total vaccinated population, preferably less than 1%) is a joke. Covid among the vaccinated is clearly now the norm. I know three cases within my family alone, and several more outside of family. Based on my personal statistics, I'd estimate ~40-50% of the vaccinated are getting covid. That's insane.

So the specifics of the meaning of the numbers you present are not easily determined just from the data you show. But the fact that the "vaccines" don't do what a true vaccine would do is beyond argument. These "vaccines" aren't that; they are a complete failure. Their failure combined with the outrageous cover-up regarding the serious harm associated with them in non-covid side effects makes this entire campaign one of the worst campaigns to create human suffering ever in history.

And it's not even in the history books yet. It's ongoing. Every day, more people will get sick and die because of these vaccines. This is not theory; it's demonstrated observation.

[–]HiddenFox[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Thank you. I see where you are going with this. For the record PEI is 94.4% fully vaxed.

Is it not safe to say that once you have COVID, the Vax makes little difference if you end up in hospital?

[–]StillLessons 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Recovering from covid is the best vaccine that currently exists. It is the only thing that acts remotely like an actual vaccine. Omicron clearly blew through the immunity people developed from cases of Alpha, Beta, and Delta, however, so even recovery-induced immunity depends on the evolution of the virus. That said, the covid recovered (particularly omicron-recovered) are the people who can be most closely considered "vaccinated" at this point. This is true with zero relation to jab-status. Those un-jabbed who have recovered from omicron are every bit as safe as those jabbed who have recovered from omicron.

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

For the record PEI is 94.4% fully vaxed.

This is where the pro-vaccine crowd make their case. Ignoring the "partially vaxed" category for the moment, for the sake of simplicity, we have an unvaccinated population of ~5% who represent a caseload of 18.4%. Meanwhile, the vaccinated population of ~95% has a case load of ~76% (combining the boosted and non-boosted vaccinated into one group). In other words, the relative risk of being classified as a covid case is significantly reduced in the vaccinated population relative to their representation in the population, while the relative risk of becoming a covid case is significantly elevated for the unvaxed relative to their proportion within the general population.

All of which is to repeat what I said above: the vaccines lower the risk of disease in a vaccinated person for a few months. But people are not being told "you will have a 40% chance of getting the disease rather than a 50% chance of getting the disease" (I made up those numbers from thin air, just for rhetorical purposes); they are being told the vaccine prevents the illness. That is absolutely not true. The difference between these two stories is where disinformation spreaders have been having a field day.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

That said, these data (and similar numbers from Scotland before they started screwing around with them) make it crystal clear that these vaccines do not prevent people from getting covid. They seem to marginally lower the probability of illness, hospitalization and death for a limited time (seemingly ~3 months), but that is not remotely the same thing as prevention. A true vaccine stops spread of a disease within the vaccinated population.

Experimental data shows a reduction in COVID spread. Observational data does not. Which one should you trust? Experimental data. Observational data simply shows correlations. If vaccinated people start to be more social due to the lower risk of hospitalization and death at every age group, then that can increase spread, but it still wouldn't be right to say "vaccines don't reduce spread". It would be right to say "people become more social after they take a vaccine and being more social causes an increase in COVID spread and this leads to a positive correlation between vaccines and spread but not causation".

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

Which one should you trust? Experimental data

That would be true 100% of the time, if experimental data was always unbiased. Unfortunately we do not live in that world. There are massive financial incentives for most studies conducted these days. Too much business depends on certain scientific findings going certain ways. So if we want to honestly interpret what is happening in the real world we have to take in account that bias as well. This is why sometimes observational data can actually be more reliable than experimental data.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Ah yes. That's why I listen to Alex Jones and buy his supplements to be manly and everything! /s

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

What does that have to do with observational data? Second hand data from a media company is not observational. A narrative told to you is different from things you observe.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'm just saying that all data is biased, and I'm much happier looking at interpretable controlled experiments even if they are possibly biased than unbiased but uninterpretable observational studies. Observational studies do not attempt to prove causation. Any causative interpretation of observational data is worth absolutely nothing.

Famous example is diet studies, where a more convincing explanation when they look at poor vegan countries for why they get less heart disease is they are less diagnosed and die earlier before they die from heart attacks.

If you want anything like causation you need a treatment and a control. Not even treatment is enough. Give a bunch of depressed kids apples and in a year they'll on average have improvements. Why? Because of regression to the mean. The average child isn't depressed. Take a bunch of non-average children and over time they regress back to the average. So if you want to see if apples do anything, you take apple pills and sugar pills don't tell them who got what, and then try to put equally depressed people into the treatment and control and a year later hope that the apple pills did better than the sugar pill. You'll probably still find the sugar pill did something, but you don't care because that's just regression to the mean.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Yes all data is biased, but that's why it's important to look at all sources of data that exist and find their average, weighted by their reliability.

Placebo and nocebo effect is definitely a thing, no doubt about it. But not everything regresses to the mean. Assuming a regression to the mean can be a logical fallacy, so we have to be careful about that too.

It's all very tricky, but I think it's important to listen to all 'sides' of an issue and not shut out "non-experimental" data in a time where scientific data is so known to be corrupted or full of problems. Have you seen the reproducability crisis, where it has come to light that about 60% of psychology studies cannot be reproduced? And that's just psychology.

The scientific method is one of the best things ever created. However we have to realize when the scientific institutions in academia and industry have strayed from the scientific method in pursuit of profit. Because the corruption of science must be spotted and routed around, if we wish to have 'mainstream science' reflect actual reality in the universe.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And that's just psychology.

Psychology is the field I'd most expect that.

Anyway, sure regression to the mean doesn't always occur, but I was just pointing out the importance of treatment and control.

My point is just that correlation means absolutely nothing. You can have positive correlations where there is negative causation, for example vaccination and hospitalization positively correlate although the correlation is reversed when you control for age and the vaccines do work. You can have no correlation where there is causation, for example the correlation between temperature in a home and air conditioning/heating energy consumption is zero because the thermostat keeps the house temperature constant.* And you can have positive correlation where there is correlation, but again it means nothing to me. Sure, there's a positive correlation between temperature and sunscreen sales, but you still can't use that correlation to argue for causation.

*This is a famous example known as Milton Friedman's Thermostat.

https://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/12/milton-friedmans-thermostat.html#:~:text=If%20a%20house%20has%20a,the%20inside%20temperature%20(P).

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Perhaps. It all comes down to how trustworthy the studies are. And after how pfizer ended their own 10-year trials after just 6 months, we truly have no long-term data. Basically the entire population was treated as a guinea pig, which is a breach of medical ethics in my opinion.

We truly have no idea how reliable those studies are. Especially when there's literally $10 billion to be made in justifying that they work.

Scientists thought cigarettes were good for you for decades, because there was a lot of money to be made, and no money to be made in the contrary opinion. It took decades to realize this reality. And that situation involved a lot fewer motivations than the current one with the mRNA shots.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And after how pfizer ended their own 10-year trials after just 6 months, we truly have no long-term data.

Plus, Pfizer is notoriously and provably the most corrupt big pharma corporation in existence.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I would trust observational data, human behaviour is an important factor in transmission and also scientists can leverage their biases more in the lab.

It's not just because vaccinated people started mixing because as you say in a previous post, most vaccinated people are older. And of course many of those avoiding vaccination have also avoided social distancing, masks and the other rules.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Observational data can not be interpreted as causative.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Mass hysteria can not be interpreted as rational.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

A virus which kills more people than the flu despite significant efforts at curtailing spread, like masking and lockdowns is cause for mass hysteria. If you're capable of counterfactual thinking, then imagine how much worse it would have been without those efforts.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

then imagine how much worse it would have been without those efforts.

Or, imagine how much better it would have been without those efforts.

Isn't it convenient that those who said, "Trust the $cience," didn't bother to do proper scientific research by isolating various factors within populations, have open uncensored dialogue, questions, and skepticism to find out the actual truth about this "pandemic"?

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How would it be better without these efforts? Please explain. What countries have less covid restrictions and fewer COVID deaths? From what I can see, countries with more restrictions, like strict regional lockdowns with strict local travel restrictions like New Zealand have a considerably lower death rate than the USA.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Changing the topic to avoid the corrupt and bad $cience facts.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Changing the topic"