UK releases report confirming the fully vaccinated now account for 9 in every 10 Covid-19 deaths in England

submitted by iamonlyoneman from sott.net

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]filbs111 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

It would be interesting to see the statistic for probability of death when correcting for risk factors, for example age.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The handwave is "young people aren't vaxd and young people dont die from covid" but its funny how you look at percentages vaxed and percentages of deaths and it's the same

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1283986/covid-19-vaccinations-in-england-by-gender-and-age/

Like 95%+ of 50+ are vaccinated and 50+ make up like 100% of those deaths. If vaccines did nothing we'd see around 19/20, not 9/10. So if the risk of death from covid with no vaccine is 1%, in 2000 people we'd have 20 deaths. But instead we vaccinate 95% of people and we end up with 9 in 10 deaths being in vaccinated people. Or in other worlds, 100 people are unvaccinated and 1 dies (1%), and 9 vaccinated people die (so that 9 in 10 deaths are from those vaccinated). So 95% being vaccinated means around half as many people die! If 100% were vaccinated, we'd have 9+9/1900 deaths = 9.47 deaths.

It's okay to not be very smart! Relative risk and absolute risk reduction is a difficult concept!

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Absolute risk reduction, you say? LOL https://drjessesantiano.com/know-the-absolute-risk-reduction-of-the-covid-19-vaccines/

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That article you have linked is not about death rates or hospitalization.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I'd! be! more! impressed! with! your! attempts! to! explain! confounding! if! you! used! fewer! exclamation! points!

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

WHAT?!

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ad hominem! Nice!

[–]IridescentAnaconda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not really an ad-hominem. I didn't criticize you the person, but rather your delivery (which is in scope, in my opinion). Also, I upvoted your other comment, which was delivered normally. Confounding is an important issue when looking at these data. I still think safety is a problem with the Vx, as well as autonomy (especially in the face of uncertainty about safety). But if one is going to present epidemiological evidence of harm, one should at least acknowledge important confounders. So I salute your efforts.

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

oh and: for someone who claims to be good at statistics you didn't do so good with the "like 100% of those deaths" bit since table 12 is illustrated in the linked article which you surely perused and didn't only read the title

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(3000+1000+500+200)/(3000+1000+500+200+100+50+10+10)=96.5%

So, yeah. Like 100% of the deaths. It's okay you're stupid!!!