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 -  (2 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 -  (1 child)

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 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.