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 -  (10 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.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 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".

[–]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"